Review of the Law: Anonymity for Complainants - Essay Example

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE LAW ON ANONYMITY AND WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO GRANT ANONYMITY TO DEFENDANTS IN SEXUAL OFFENCES CASES By Course Professor University Date Critical Evaluation of the Law on Anonymity and Whether It Needs To Be Changed To Grant Anonymity to Defendants in Sexual Offences Cases Review of the Law: Anonymity for Complainants The law of Anonymity for complainants in rape cases was introduced in 1976 and later extended to all criminal cases involving sexual offences. The rationale for allowing anonymity for victims in rape and sex crimes cases was premised on the outcomes of a parliamentary discussion that came up with a number of grounds that made it fundamental to restrict the identity of sex crime complainants. The committee deliberated that public knowledge of the indignity or violation that the complainant had undergone was distressing and harmful to his/her reputation and thus hiding his/her identity would help to prevent such a scenario. Relatively, the risk of such indignity would act as a deterrent to bring forth justice since a complainant would choose not to make a formal complaint of an assault for fear of the stigma attached to the indignity caused to her. Ideally, in most sexual offences cases, the identity of the complainant is not of public interest, thus it is not necessary for the victim’s identity be disclosed to the public because the humiliation resulting from sexual violation offences is more severe than other conventional criminal cases since due to the disclosure of the sexual history of the complainant during trial unlike in other criminal offenses (Great Britain, 1983). Anonymity arises when the media is prohibited from revealing the identities of victims of sexual offences or information that would lead to the identity of the complainants. The restrictions becomes binding from the moment the complainant files a claim and lasts for the entire life of the individual. However, the anonymity of a complainant does not prohibit them from being mentioned in court proceedings or any other discussion other than the media. Ideally, anonymity can be lifted in exceptional circumstances such as when the complainant chooses to reveal his/her identity, when the status of that particular complaint is in report of previous criminal proceedings or when the court of appeal lifts the restriction to reveal the identity of the complainant (Card, 2004). Due to the rise of the cases of false sexual allegations from claimants in 2008, an amendment was moved by Lord Campbell-Saviour to the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill in a bid to limit the anonymity of complainants who were believed to be making false allegations. This was aimed at protecting the esteem of the defendants that were falsely implicated by removing anonymity from complainants, which had enabled them to make false allegations to prevent similar future occurrences. However, the amendment was later withdrawn because the government opposed its efficiency since only a few cases that were successfully redirected to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission were solved (Herring, 2014) Review of the Law: Anonymity for Defendants The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 1976 that had provisions for anonymity for the complainants equally had provisions that granted defendants anonymity with the sole purpose of ensuring there was equality among the two parties and to safeguard the innocence of defendants from public stigma. The Criminal Law Review in 1984 made a report that elaborated on the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act and came to the conclusion that anonymity for the defendants was unnecessary as was earlier suggested by the Act and thus it became the basis for singling out rape offence defendants from defendants of other crimes. Thus, the idea of instilling equality in sexual offences was baseless despite the sensitive nature of those cases. Following that report the defendants’ anonymity was repealed by the Sexual Offences Act and thus respondents no longer enjoyed anonymity. Numerous debates have ensured there after all attempting to introduce anonymity for the accused given the ramification hat have developed in the justice system. The cases of false allegations have been increasing bringing to stigma defendants that end up being acquitted of the charges levelled against them (Great Britain, 1983). The Sexual Offences (Anonymity for Defendants) Bill of 1991 was one of the efforts that were made to reinstate the anonymity that respondents enjoyed previously. The bill was introduced by Crispin Blunt and it was primarily aimed at protecting teachers or other persons involved in taking care of children from any malicious sexual allegations against children that would be levelled against them. However, the bill was lost as it did not garner enough support to see it to the second reading. It is worth noting that the member who pushed for the bill for defendants to be granted anonymity singled out the issue of malicious sexual allegations (Wright, 2015). Sexual offences are grave and demeaning to the violated person, however, with the emerging issues it is worth that the element of publicity of the defendant should is taken into consideration due to the stigma that follows. Complainants at times can fabricate claims implicating persons to have sexually assaulted them to satisfy their personal interest or for the sole purpose of damaging the reputation of the defendants. Conversely, the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 had a clause that was introduced in it that was meant to grant defendants of sex offences anonymity. The proponents of the provision argued that during the twelve years that respondents had been enjoying anonymity there was no substantial evidence that proved that that privilege was a deterrent to justice. Evidently, a section of the committee members favoured a limited anonymity for the defendants in that it would only be restricted to the time the allegation is made and the commencement of charges (Walker, 1980). That flexibility would provide a balance of fairness to both the defendant and the general public since naming of the complainants was one of the mechanisms that facilitated the naming of witnesses. Despite the fact that all defendants in criminal proceeding are entitled to similar rights and privileges, it prudent to note that sex offences tend to fall in a slightly different order from other crimes. Typically, the stigma that is often associated with sexual violation offences tends to be more aggressive more so when it is an offence against children. The accusations alone can be devastating as they can permanently destroy the public image of the defendants even after the acquittal of the charges. The idea of limited anonymity came from the fact that there needed to be a balance between protecting the publicity of the defendant as well as serving the interests of the public by reporting criminal proceedings to them. Apparently, cases that manage to reach the trial stage are substantial and would only be thrown out due to technical issues, thus as much as the evidence provided would not prove beyond reasonable doubt the issues raised, undoubtedly hold some fact unless the complainant is a serial liar. However, the government rejected the suggestions to reintroduce anonymity for defendants citing that singling out of defendants in sex offences raised doubt over the credibility of the complainants’ allegations since similar issues are experienced with other criminal offences (Wright, 2015). Reasons for the Law on Anonymity to be or not to be changed to Grant Anonymity to Defendants in Sexual Offences Cases The anonymity law should not be changed to grant defendants of sex offences anonymity because of the various reasons that discussed below. A false allegation is the basis or rather the issue that comes up whenever the discussion to grant defendants anonymity ensues. The prevalence of false claims concerning sex offences is often exaggerated. The number of sexual assault cases that are reported and do not end up being determined are far significantly more than those that the defendants are acquitted due to lack of evidence mainly because of malice allegations of the complainants or intention to perverse justice. Incidentally, false allegations is not a preserve of sex offences only, other crimes are also prone to malicious claims being levelled against innocent defendants. The scope under which the defendants of sex crimes are singled out to enjoy anonymity and yet the other defendants are not allowed the same privilege makes the entire idea questionable. Justice is uniform to all subjects regardless of the magnitude or type of crime committed, thus the issue of sexual assault defendants suffering adverse negative publicity once they are acquitted does not outweigh the same situation when it happens for committed who had been falsely accused of murder or robbery with violence. However, the circumstances or rather situations that culminate whenever sex offences are reported throws the entire issue out of proportion thus jeopardising the balance rights that already exist (Card, 2004). Under the current law, the details of the defendants are to be kept a secret from the moment he/she launched a formal complaint and the prohibition remains binding for the entire life of that victim. Still on that note, the law has no provisions for the anonymity of the defendant thus the moment claims are levelled against him/her the details are published. Frequently, whenever sexual offences are reported the media typically makes a great deal of coverage by trying to scrutinise the situation in all manners especially if the individual implicated was a public figure. The offence will trend in news headlines for a considerable period since the limelight of the media will be focussed on such pieces of news. However, when the same person is acquitted of the charges the same hype and pomp that culminated when he/she was implicated will not be the same one that will follow news of his/her acquittal (Wright, 2015). By that time, the story will no longer be newsworthy thus it will be featured sparingly. The contract among the two scenarios brings about the issue of anonymity. In the first case the entire world was notified of the allegations that were levelled against the defendants but come the time of his/her acquittal the same audience will not be actually informed of the development of the case. A significant number of people might never come to know that indeed the defendant was acquitted regardless of the fact that acquittal is supposed to act as a form of public vindication. Conversely, defendants in other cases encounter the same scenarios thus it will not be prudent for only sexual offences defendants to be singled out to enjoy anonymity as the same experiences are shared by other defendants in conventional cases (Wright, 2015). Critics argue that by granting defendants’ anonymity it will serve to discourage victims of sexual offences from coming forward since they move will give the impression of protecting the accused. Frequently, more victims come up after charges have been levelled against the defendant even witnesses will be more willing to testify against a person they know rather than whose identity is hidden. For that matter by allowing the defendants to be anonymous it will jeopardise the course of justice since the process of seeking justice for the victims will be hampered to some extent (Card, 2004). Ideally, the number of rapes and other sex related offences has been continually raising over the years due to the confidence that has been instilled in the public due to come out and report the molesters. Ideally it will be a total insult and a backlash to the entire legal system if the molesters are protected by hiding their details while the victims since the victims will no longer be comfortable coming up to raise their concerns. Based on the fact that anonymity of the defendants is premised on false allegations being levelled against them granting them the privilege will be another way of acknowledging the fact that victims of sex offences are liars and thus the accused ought to be protected by hiding their identities from the public. That notwithstanding, there is no single element that is isolated or rather particular with sex offences that make them deserve superficial treatment than the other criminal offences. Malicious claims are equally made in other crimes and the defendants are still not protected (Andrews, 1981). The extent to which anonymity should be granted to sex offence defendants is a critical issue that causes a lot of controversies. The amendments that were meant to be introduced in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 outlined that anonymity should only cover the period between the allegations being made and commencement of trial. That point only includes the time parameter but in terms of scope sexual offences can come up in various manners and proportions. The extent that anonymity will be extended in terms of scope of sex crimes is a pertinent issue that further complicates the matter. Rape is the primary sex offence and the argument on defendants’ anonymity tends to surround those accused of perpetrating that crime (Card, 2004). However, sex crimes are broad and covers a myriad of offences the question of whether anonymity should be limited to defendant of rape cases only or it should cover the entire spectrum of sexual offences has not yet been deliberated on. The legal perspective on the scope of sex crimes can take a twist in the sense that it can involve much than what the surface of sex offences might tend to depict. For instance, allegations can be made against a person of burglary with intent to rape or conspiracy to violate all these can be categorised as sex offences since the element of sexual assault is involved. Then again if they qualify to be granted anonymity it is prudent that all other defendants deserve the same treatment since there is nothing different between a person accused of burglary with conspiracy to rape and another one who has been charged with robbery or handling stolen property (Welsh et al., 2007). At times after the defendants have been acquitted they may sight unfairness in the manner in which the process was conducted given the fact that the victims were granted anonymity but the same was not done to them. The general notion that people will often assume is that there was lack of fairness now that the allegations made against the accused have turned out to be false or rather sufficient grounds to convict him/her have not be attained. But then, the primary motivation of the legal processes is for justice to prevail and not ensure fairness to the parties. If at all the defendants was granted anonymity and the process bundles due to lack of witnesses it will be to the disadvantage of the victims and the legal process at large since Justice that is the primary motivation has not been achieved. In this case fairness is an individual interest of the defendants only and justice will be achieved for the interest of the complainant as well as the general public at large. The idea of the defendants to remain anonymous in order to protect their publicity does not outweigh the overall interest of the general public for justice to prevail (Wilson et al., 2014). Conversely, the course of justice should be conducted in an open and transparent manner to allow for public scrutiny in the sense that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done by the people. The notion of the public being told justice for the victim should be accomplished is not enough; evidence of the prosecution and trial of the accused will serve to substantiate those claims. Thus, the idea of anonymity contravenes the principle of openness in the course of justice since by hiding the details of the defendants and the complainant at the same time will not make sense since even the severity of the case will be lost since no identifiable individuals can be associated with the case. The perpetrators of the crime will even be motivated since after all nobody will ever come to unravel the offences that they committed. The idea also sends mixed reactions as it implies the victims are not to be trusted with their claims thus the need to protect the defendants. Ideally, the law stipulates clearly that the accused remains innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no sufficient ground to convict the accused he/she stands to lose nothing since acquittal will act as a public vindication and the defendant is enabled by law to file a suit for defamation if he/she thinks the allegations were malicious. Similarly, anonymity of sex offences defendants will motivate serial perpetrators of the crimes thus inhibiting their prosecution (Hanna, & Dodd, 2012) Summary It has become a common practice that when a sexual offence has been published in the media other victims come forward with similar claims being levelled against the person implicated; for instance, in 2008 when John Worboy, a taxi driver, was arraigned in court for a series of sexual assault cases against his clients approximately ninety other women came out to claim they have been sexually abused by the same man in the past. It is prudent that the moment the accused is identified even the victims are empowered to come out strongly and make their allegations. The moment the defendants are kept anonymous many other crimes that may have been perpetrated by that individual might never come to be known due to lack of courage by victims to come out. Defendants in sex offences cases used to enjoy the privileged of anonymity there before. In the past the law had provisions for defendants’ anonymity for close to twelve years before it was later repealed. To this moment it is close to thirty years since the defendants in sex offences lost the privilege to anonymity but then there is no single instance where the legal system has failed to adequately administer justice due to the issue of defendants of sexual offences being revealed. Conversely, it has worked to the advantage of the administration of justice since the number of sexually violated victims that have made their claims is significantly going up thus demonstrating the confidence that has been instilled to the victims by identifying their perpetrators. The rationale for defendants of sex offences being granted anonymity complicates the administration of justice as it introduces a number of bottlenecks to the process of ensuring justice is done to the victims. On that note, it is prudent if the law remains the way it is to ensure those accused in sex offences are identified to the public to shame them for their uncouth behaviours as well as empower other persons that have been violated in the past to have the courage to come forward and report the same. Ideally, the moment the defendants of sex offences are made public even witnesses will be more willing to come forward to strengthen the case as opposed to situations when the accused remains anonymous throughput the entire legal process. Similarly, the interest of the public is the objective of the legal system. It is supposed to ensure the greatest good goes to the majority. In this case, granting defendants of sex crimes anonymity will be satisfying the individual interests of accused at the expense of the general public. The idea of fairness between the defendants and the complainant is vague since the motivation of the legal system in primarily to administer justice to all people. Thus, balance of fairness between the two groups in terms of both being granted anonymity does not surpass the overall objective of the courts to ensure justice for the victims. Ultimately, the factors against defendants of sex offences being granted anonymity surpass those in favour and thus it is of public interest to facilitate the course of justice at all cost to protect the victims of such ordeals. Hence, it is prudent to note that the current situation (lack of anonymity to sex offences defendants) concerning the anonymity for defendants of sexual offences is in line with the pursuit to justice for the victims of those ordeals. Thus, changes in the law regarding the issue are not necessary since during the thirty years that the current law denying defendants of sex crimes anonymity has been in operation there is no empirical evidence that has suggested the law has contravened the course of justice in any way whatsoever. Rather, a number of remarkable steps have been achieved as a result of its implementation since the number of victims coming forward has been increasing due to the confidence they have they have bestowed as a result of identifying the perpetrators of those crimes. It is from that premise that I conclude that the current law should not be changed to grant defendants of sex offences anonymity as it is in line with the interest of the public as well as favours administration of justice. Reflective Journal Contemporary legal research has been an enjoyable experience for me since I have been able to develop a number of skills and attributes as a result of the tasks and deliverables that comes along the course. To begin with I have been able to appreciate the legal process concerning a number of aspects that take place in our environment. Some issues that previously seemed out of my knowledge are now fully elaborate and the knowledge of such subjects has enabled me to develop a new understanding of various issues within the legal discipline. Law a subject has a lot of ramifications that take place e ach day and thus through research we can understand why things happen the way they did as well as develop a rationale of why the situations were treated in that manner (Knowles and Thomas, 2006). The extensive research that I have conducted concerning the anonymity of sexual offence defendants has opened up the entire perspective of anonymity in law. Previously, my knowledge of the issue was kind of limited but with the comprehensive research that I conducted I was able to appreciate the development in that field and their implication for the administration of justice for the victims. That notwithstanding, the course enabled me to develop interpersonal skills due to the nature of tasks that were involved. Personally, I tend to be a conservative person but for the purpose of the objectives of the course I had to cut the boundary and engage my colleagues in refining my knowledge in the discipline as well as participate in constructive discussions to some up with informed ideas on the subject (Higgins and Tatham, 2006). The process of conducting research concerning the anonymity of the accused in sexual offences exposed me to some concepts and ideas that have significantly changed the manner in which I understand the subject. Law is a complicated process that requires a balance between all the involved parties for the primary objective of seeking justice. The discussion on the matter revealed numerous elements that are involved in the process of allowing or denying defendants anonymity in sex offences (Knowles and Thomas, 2006). In a nutshell, I have enhanced my knowledge as far as contemporary legal research is concerned and the insights gained have assisted me to redefine my understanding of legal issues from a more pragmatic perspective. That notwithstanding, the strict timelines that were attached to the deliverables of the course have enabled me to be a good time manager as all through the entire period I have been able to meet the set deadlines though it was tough and committing at times in the end I accomplished all the requirements for the course. Finally, I must admit that contemporary legal research had added value to me since I am not the same person when I first attended the course. I have developed both knowledge wise and socially since I elaborate legal matter in a more vivid manner. References Andrews, J. A., 1981. Human rights in criminal procedure: a comparative study. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. Bloy, D., 2007. Media law. London, LA: SAGE. Card, R., 2004. Sexual offences: the new law. Bristol: Jordans. Great Britain. 1983. Parliamentary papers. London, LA: HMSO. Hale, C., Hayward, K., Wahidin, A., & Wincup, E., 2013. Criminology. Hanna, M., & Dodd, M. (2012). McNaes essential law for journalists (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Herring, J., 2014. Criminal law: text, cases, and materials. Higgins, E. and Tatham, L., 2006. Successful Legal Writing. London, LA: Thomson – Sweet and Maxwell. Jaconelli, J., 2002. Open justice: a critique of the public trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knowles, J. and Thomas, P., 2006. Effective Legal Research. London, LA: Thomson -Sweet and Maxwell Walker, N., 1980. Punishment, Danger and Stigma: the morality of criminal justice. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble Books. Welsh, T., Greenwood, W., Banks, D., & McNae, L. C. J., 2007. McNaes essential law for journalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, S., Rutherford, H., Storey, T., & Wortley, N., 2014. English legal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, R. G., 2015. Sex offender laws: failed policies, new directions. Read More