Anonymity for defendants until proven guilty?

[Minty]

This story obviously stems from Michael Le Vell's exoneration, and the primary story is concerned with rape defendants.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24037910

 

But is there a case for all defendants, up to a point, to be anonymous until proven guilty?

 

It shouldn't be needed really - if someone is found to be innocent, they should be treated as such, no matter what the allegation, but we all know that doesn't happen, and I think we have all, at some point or another, probably watched a story like his and thought 'well, no smoke without fire' or similar.

 

It's arguably a problem with wider society - and social media and the internet help in the proliferation of accusatory stories and opinions prior to any guilt being proven. But beyond looking at our own morals and behaviour in these circumstances, is there something we can or should do about it?

[doubleonothing]

It could be argued the biggest problem for someone such as Michael Le Vell is the way they are treated until they are aquitted. The printed press, on the whole, will treat them as though they are guilty. He has had his name and reputation dragged through the mud.

 

As you say we have all thought "no smoke without fire", but is this partly down to the way the press cover trials? Possibly.

 

Whilst, up to a point, there is a case for the defendant being anoymous until guilty, it would be hard to enforce with social media etc. The press will report that "Mr X" is on trial but it will eventually get out. If they are appearing on TV (such as a soap) and dissapear at the time of a trial it wouldn't be hard to put two and two together.

 

Whilst rape is obviously a serious crime and victims should not be deterred from reporting it, something needs to be done about those who report false allegations. It does happen from time to time and ruins lives. How to prevent it, I don't know.

 

What were the views of Saints fans at the time Dave Jones was on trial? I can't really re-call.

[buctootim]

Christine Hamilton was on the radio earlier arguing that people accused of sex offences should be guaranteed anonymity at least until they are charged, and thereafter at the discretion of the Judge. Its hard to argue against that.

[badgerx16]

What about anonymity for suspects before they have been formally charged ? When a serious crime happens you get this media frenzy and there seems to be a general assumption that if somebody has been questioned in relation to a case then they're fair game - how many times do we see a person named and their personal life shredded in the public arena, only for it all to become an anonymous "A man/woman has been charged" once it all becomes formal - especially if the person charged isn't the person who has been openly abused, as with the Joanna Yeates murder.

[Hatch]

with Le Vell, now that he has been found not guilty, then surely by default, the supposed 'victim' was lying.

 

Does she now face charges herself?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I think the argument is that if a suspect is named then it encourages witnesses and and other victims to come forward. I can totally see the counter argument however that people's lives are being ruined by false accusations.

[aintforever]

with Le Vell, now that he has been found not guilty, then surely by default, the supposed 'victim' was lying.

 

Does she now face charges herself?

 

The problem is she might have been telling the truth, there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

 

I think it would be fair to give the accused anonymity unless they are found guilty, that way you should have less people making stuff up to drag someones name through the dirt. It may actually lead to more convictions because without that motive jurys might be more inclined to believe the victim.

[Bearsy]

I reckon it would be better not to prosecute innocent people in the first place. That is what I would do! I dunno why they keep insist on prosecuting innocent people, it seems a big waste of everyone's time.

[alpine_saint]

A couple of points :

 

People are acquitted in trials through lack of evidence all the time. Its doesnt mean they didnt committ the crime.

 

If you get accused of armed robbery and are cleared, people shrug their shoulders and look at it abstractedly. Its different if its a sexual offence or an offence against childen, imo. The story lingers. I dont understand why, but thats the way it is. I am therefore in favour of anonymity until a guilty conviction in the case of sexual offences or an offence against children.

[alpine_saint]

with Le Vell, now that he has been found not guilty, then surely by default, the supposed 'victim' was lying.

 

Does she now face charges herself?

 

Indeed, its a fair question. If she doesnt, it means that she is believed and in reality hes guilty of the accused offence.

 

The bottom line is, whether you like it or not, although the law is black and white, upholding it isnt.

[Bearsy]

Would you let Kevin from Coronation Street babysit your kids? Serious question! I'm interest.

[Saint_clark]

Do we at least get to name the accuser so they can have their name dragged through the mud in the press as well?

[Tokyo-Saint]

I reckon it would be better not to prosecute innocent people in the first place. That is what I would do! I dunno why they keep insist on prosecuting innocent people, it seems a big waste of everyone's time.

 

Sounds jokes bear but this is what they do in Japan. They are much stricter about what goes to court and what doesn't. I read before that stuff that goes to court has about a 98% chance of being found guilty. Court is like the last step. Once you are going there, you pretty much know that you are going down. The CPS over here are more like "let's send it to court and see what happens. There is a decent chance they will be found guilty." "

"Decent chance? Good enough for me."

"What even that boning with the teddy bear stuff, seemed far fetched. Did you cross examine her?"

"Nah, well you can't really. It's a sensitive subject. Don't want to push it, she might get upset."

"Ok cool, let's send it to court and see what happens. He looks dodgy doesn't he?"

"yeah, mechanics are always dodgy bastards. Let's see what happens"

Edited 11 September, 2013 by Tokyo-Saint

[Give it to Ron]

Would you let Kevin from Coronation Street babysit your kids? Serious question! I'm interest.

 

What let those oily greasy mits over my nice leather sofa.....never

[egg]

A couple of points :

 

People are acquitted in trials through lack of evidence all the time. Its doesnt mean they didnt committ the crime.

 

Correct. A Not Guilty verdict often doesn't prove innocence and/or that the accuser was lying.

 

When I ran a criminal defence practice the vast majority of the Defendants who were acquited had committed the crime.

 

The fact that I played a part in keeping abusers, thugs, thieves and other toerags on the streets is the reason I gave up that work years ago.

[Bearsy]

Sounds jokes bear but this is what they do in Japan. They are much stricter about what goes to court and what doesn't. I read before that stuff that goes to court has about a 98% chance of being found guilty. Court is like the last step. Once you are going there, you pretty much know that you are going down. The CPS over here are more like "let's send it to court and see what happens. There is a decent chance they will be found guilty." "

"Decent chance? Good enough for me."

"What even that boning with the teddy bear stuff, seemed far fetched. Did you cross examine her?"

"Nah, well you can't really. It's a sensitive subject. Don't want to push it, she might get upset."

"Ok cool, let's send it to court and see what happens. He looks dodgy doesn't he?"

"yeah, mechanics are always dodgy bastards. Let's see what happens"

 

That sounds a good system tokyos! I would do that system!

 

My only other idea is if instead of just Guilty or Innocent you can also be found "Yeah he probably done it, but we can't prove nothing." If ur getting that verdict you probably can't go to prison or nothing, but at least I would know not to let Kevin from Coronation Street babysit my kids. Or at least to confiscate his teddybear first.

[Tokyo-Saint]

They have that in Scotland bear - you get a 'not proven' verdict. Means we know you did it but can't prove it.

[Bearsy]

Interesting. Do they do anything to the people who is Not Proven? I mean I know they can't go prison, but do they at least give them a kicking or make them listen bagpipes before sending them on their way?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Yeah something like that. They had to introduce it cause of the high number of sex registers applying to be on take the high road.

 

Egg - what the worst thing you got someone who did it off for?

[trousers]

When I ran a criminal defence practice the vast majority of the Defendants who were acquited had committed the crime.

.

 

Rhetorical question, but how did you know they had committed the crime? If they openly admitted it to you aren't you duty bound to report it? Don't you become an accessory to the crime if you conceal evidence that the person committed the crime?

[Tokyo-Saint]

Stop trying to frame egg trousers. We have to get the info first then we can frame him for colluding with crimes in the 90s.

[Saintandy666]

I think the best way to fix this kind of stuff is for the general public to change their attitude to trials and fully appreciate 'innocent until proven guilty'. Most of all, this means that certain elements of the press need to be more sensible in their reporting of legal proceedings. This doesn't mean I am entirely blaming the press because press standards feed off public wants as well.

 

As for the anonymity idea, it doesn't sit well with me. Does this effectively mean that no details of a trial bar the fact that a trial is taking place will be in the public sphere? How can we then trust the system to do its job properly? I would not be against a proposal of anonymity until charged however, presuming police are keeping to usual high standards of evidence.

 

Minty, perhaps you can expand on this idea in saying what exactly you'd want to be in the public domain and what wouldn't be in the public domain. Would all trial info bar names be available?

 

And perhaps Alpine has a decent point re: innocent of lack of evidence for many cases. It would be interesting to see what proportion of cases (where it is lack of evidence) where the prosecution witnesses are then successfully prosecuted for perjury.

[Lets B Avenue]

As for the anonymity idea, it doesn't sit well with me. Does this effectively mean that no details of a trial bar the fact that a trial is taking place will be in the public sphere? How can we then trust the system to do its job properly? I would not be against a proposal of anonymity until charged however, presuming police are keeping to usual high standards of evidence.

 

Minty, perhaps you can expand on this idea in saying what exactly you'd want to be in the public domain and what wouldn't be in the public domain. Would all trial info bar names be available?

 

 

I'm sorry, but what relevance does yours or my knowledge of the trial and its build-up have to do with the courts sole purpose. Justice?

 

The fact that our society has an insatiable thirst for salacious news and they must have to blame somebody, anybody and the more famous the better, is surely hindering the court. The judge in Le Vail's case had to remind the jury that they were not there to try "Kevin Webster" despite the tabloid frenzy.

 

I did jury service a couple of months ago and one of the cases was about the historic indecent assault of a minor. If it had been a celebrity in the dock, I wonder how objective I would have been.

[Jonnyboy]

I'm sorry, but what relevance does yours or my knowledge of the trial and its build-up have to do with the courts sole purpose. Justice?

 

The fact that our society has an insatiable thirst for salacious news and they must have to blame somebody, anybody and the more famous the better, is surely hindering the court. The judge in Le Vail's case had to remind the jury that they were not there to try "Kevin Webster" despite the tabloid frenzy.

 

I did jury service a couple of months ago and one of the cases was about the historic indecent assault of a minor. If it had been a celebrity in the dock, I wonder how objective I would have been.

 

My St abusers have multiple victims who may then come forward, see Jimmy Saviles legions of victims.

[Turkish]

Innocent until proven guilty Is a load of bill+cks.

 

Why do they impose bail conditions of this is the case? Why do the prosecution build a case against you, using every minor bit of evidence regardless of how innocent or irelevant it might actually be and attempt to turn it into something sinsister to fit the picture they are trying to paint.

 

It's more a question of guilty until proven innocent and the public lap it all up, salivating at any news and the thought of what might have gone on. They aren't going to deny the public and opportunity to enjoy it all and the old bill love it all. As long as they get their conviction they don't care how they do it.

[Minty]

Minty, perhaps you can expand on this idea in saying what exactly you'd want to be in the public domain and what wouldn't be in the public domain. Would all trial info bar names be available?

 

I honestly don't know - I posted the thread initially to get others feedback because I'm not sure what might or might not be appropriate. To be honest though, the more I think about it the more I agree with Lets B Avenue... the primary thing we should be seeking is justice, and public awareness of a case shouldn't affect that. In theory.

 

And lets be honest, as much as you or I would love it to be the case, the 'public' at large simply won't change their attitudes overnight... Turks is right, there is almost an appetite for news about this kind of thing, like a real-life soap opera that they are watching and gaining enjoyment from nearly. That's the impression you get sometimes, especially when you hear people talking about it in the street or down the pub...

[egg]

Rhetorical question, but how did you know they had committed the crime? If they openly admitted it to you aren't you duty bound to report it? Don't you become an accessory to the crime if you conceal evidence that the person committed the crime?

 

Many tell you after they've been acquited!

 

If they tell you before the trial you can't put forward a positive case for the defence (ie call evidence) but you can challenge the prosecution case. In that situation it's sensible to withdraw and let them find new lawyers and start again.

 

Client's rarely walk walk into your office saying "I'm innocent". Instead they want your help to "get them off". That involves attacking the prosecution case or leaving them to mess it up which in my time they were very good at.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Come on Perry Mason, what's the worst crim that told you after he had actually done it.

[egg]

Can't get into specifics Tokes. My criminal practice spanned a very broad range.

 

Anyways, the popint is that people shouldn't be thinking that people found "not guilty" are always innocent and that the accuser is a liar.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Yeah I get that, look at OJ. Just was hoping for some juicy story. Let's not go into specifics, let's just call the crim Brian from Birmingham and put a crime to him... over to you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

with Le Vell, now that he has been found not guilty, then surely by default, the supposed 'victim' was lying.

 

Does she now face charges herself?

 

If they could prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, then she should be charged with it. Its never going to happen in a "he said/she said" case like this.

 

The more important question for me is , would he have faced charges per js

[Turkish]

Can't get into specifics Tokes. My criminal practice spanned a very broad range.

 

Anyways, the popint is that people shouldn't be thinking that people found "not guilty" are always innocent and that the accuser is a liar.

Never seen the shawshank redemption? They're all only there because of scum like you.

[buctootim]

If they could prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, then she should be charged with it. Its never going to happen in a "he said/she said" case like this.

 

The more important question for me is , would he have faced charges per js

 

There is an awful lot of muddy grey between proving proving a defendant guilty and proving a complainant made it up. Will be interesting to see if Le Vell's accuser sues him for damages in a civil court where the burden of proof is only 'balance of probability'.

[egg]

Never seen the shawshank redemption? They're all only there because of scum like you.

 

Cheers Del, I'll hang my head in shame.

[Jonnyboy]

Innocent until proven guilty Is a load of bill+cks.

 

Why do they impose bail conditions of this is the case? Why do the prosecution build a case against you, using every minor bit of evidence regardless of how innocent or irelevant it might actually be and attempt to turn it into something sinsister to fit the picture they are trying to paint.

 

It's more a question of guilty until proven innocent and the public lap it all up, salivating at any news and the thought of what might have gone on. They aren't going to deny the public and opportunity to enjoy it all and the old bill love it all. As long as they get their conviction they don't care how they do it.

 

If you can't do the time...

[Saint_clark]

I'm sorry, but what relevance does yours or my knowledge of the trial and its build-up have to do with the courts sole purpose. Justice?

 

The fact that our society has an insatiable thirst for salacious news and they must have to blame somebody, anybody and the more famous the better, is surely hindering the court. The judge in Le Vail's case had to remind the jury that they were not there to try "Kevin Webster" despite the tabloid frenzy.

 

I did jury service a couple of months ago and one of the cases was about the historic indecent assault of a minor. If it had been a celebrity in the dock, I wonder how objective I would have been.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

[pap]

The plus side of the present system is transparency. I'm not sure I'd like the idea of courts operating in secret, only to suddenly pop up and say "oh yeah, so and so's a paedo". The points about the media are well made, there is almost a Heisenberg principle at work, but I think most juries would be able to constrain themselves to the evidence.

 

If defendants were anonymous, would there be as much press scrutiny of these events if the press were forbidden from reporting on events until the conclusion?

 

The problem with such proposals is that they could very easily become de-facto secret courts, and we have too many actual secret courts as it is. Serious charges need to be in the open. I know it must be incredibly uncomfortable for those that are innocent, but as Dave Jones has shown, it is possible to be completely exonerated and continue with a career. The case ultimately came down to his word against hers. In Le Vell's favour, these sort of cases are extremely difficult to prove to a judicial standard. He was likely to get off from the start. The flip side of that is that some people will always wonder, particularly because the bloke is an actor by trade.

[Tokyo-Saint]

We could just go in the complete opposite direction. Have the whole trial on TV, then at the end we call call in and decide if they are guilty or not guilty. Simon Cowell can be the judge, Ant & Dec can be the court foremen or whatever Bird is on Judge Judy.

[Saint in Paradise]

Sometimes here in NZ a person found guilty can still have permanent name suppression.