Anonymity for rape defendants obstructs justice!!

Some quotes from yesterday’s debate in Parliament over anonymity for rape defendants.

The anonymity debate has been characterised by a number of myths and misconceptions, which have unfortunately served to obscure rather than clarify matters. For example, it is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward. One can easily understand the argument that depriving complainants of anonymity would indeed have that effect. Their cross-examination about painful personal matters would be exposed to the public gaze, which is bound to have a deterrent effect on the willingness of others to come forward. Parliament has long recognised that reality. However, it is difficult to understand how the anonymity of a defendant could possibly have such an effect. There is an argument that reducing publicity around rape investigations and trial should make it easier for complainants. That would be an effect of protecting the defendant’s identity. The strength of that effect before and during any trial will be a matter of judgment (Crispin Blunt – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Ministry of Justice)

Let me say to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House earlier, there is no evidence that defendant anonymity would have an adverse impact on reporting. Victims may well be encouraged to come forward by the understanding that the criminal justice system is likely to deal with their complaint effectively and anonymously, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is difficult to understand how a suspect’s or even a charged defendant’s anonymity can have an impact. (Mr Jonathan Djanogly - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice )

I still can’t comprehend why the Con/Dem alliance is seeking to give anonymity to rape defendants. Why? Where is the need, where is the research/statistics that outlines the necessity for this dramatic change? Again, why change this? Blunt states it has nothing to do with doubting victims’ reports or repeating uninformed arguments about false allegations. Though this issue of false allegation was indeed brought up by Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) in the debate: Is the hon. Lady not also conscious of the need to prevent false accusations against innocent people and the connected wrongs?

These attempts by the Con/Dems just reeks of misogyny and it’s a dangerous move. Where’s the evidence? Why is Blunt honing in on rape defendants?  Both Louise Bagshawe and Meg Munn both made cogent points in the debate:

Will my hon. Friend expand on this a little? Does he understand the concern that is felt on both sides of the House that, by singling out rape in this way, he is sending out a negative signal about women and about those who accuse men of rape?(Louise Bagshawe)

 I am extremely puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has set out a very defensible position on why someone’s name should not be in the public domain before they are charged, but why is that desirable only in relation to rape and not to any other offence? Surely the same should apply to anyone who felt that they had been wrongly accused of theft or burglary or any other offence.(Meg Munn)

What the Con/Dem right-wing lash-up are continuing to do by putting the spotlight on rape defendant anonymity is create further misogynistic myths and lies about rape. Women have such an uphill struggle obtaining justice when it comes to rape this proposal will obstruct justice.

See as well the excellent Goriler 3B

Advertisement