And Rebecca Camber and other hacks - how about the thousands of wrongly convicted victims of liars and fantasists currently clogging up jails? Let's have some balance in media coverage (although it's easily understood in a media world where the only moral responsibility is "a good story").

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7016681...ssault-suspects.html

I would go further and say that in historic cases, if a man is not charged or is found not guilty, or if a guilty verdict is subsequently overturned, the complainant's name suppression should cease.

With their name in the public domain they're hardly likely to go after someone else without questions being asked. For all we know, Cliff's accuser might be going after someone else at this very minute.

This campaign to grant anonymity for the accused is a HUGE mistake, for two reasons.

1) It entrenches the anonymity of the accuser, which is a bad thing. I think accusers should never be anonymous. Trials must be public so they can be subject to scrutiny. Witnesses must likewise be public, to be subject to scrutiny. Giving public evidence is an acid test for the veracity of a complaint. If it's genuine, the complainant should have no reason to fear scrutiny. On a point of moral principle, I think anyone making a serious allegation should be prepared to make it publicly and face the accused. Telling tales behind a veil of anonymity and wriggling out of any reasonable inquiry into the story (such as the phone evidence brouhaha) undermines the true purpose of a criminal trial. On the prosecuting side, there's great enthusiasm for encouraging people to come forward to accuse. But it cuts both ways. Witnesses should also be encouraged to come forward if they were also falsely accused in similar circumstances (as in the Jemma Beale case). Another example is Ched Evans. It was only when his accuser was illegally named online that a witness could come forward with relevant evidence about her sexual behaviour.

2) Anonymity for the accused can easily lead to anonymity until conviction. A defendant can then be imprisoned on remand anonymously, raising habeas corpus problems. Anonymity until conviction means that the trial is also conducted anonymously. No one knows who is being accused and by whom. From there, it's only a short step to anonymity AFTER conviction, the reasons given will of course be to protect complainants victims survivors, as well as the convicts' families. And hey presto, we have anonymous arrests, anonymous pre-trial detention, anonymous semi-secret trials, anonymous sentencing and anonymous imprisonment, and no one will be able to publish anything about what's going on.



Beware.