England: people accused of sexual crimes should be given anonymity says retired judge

Those accused of sexual crimes should be given anonymity because of the “stigma” that attaches to the offences according to a retired judge.

Her Honour Mary Jane Mowat, who was a crown court judge for 18 years, said it was “grossly unjust” a complainant could say what she pleased under a “lifelong guarantee of privacy” while an accused is “publicly pilloried”.

Speaking to The Brief, she said: “I have come round to the view that the criminal law “should grant anonymity to defendants, unless and until convicted, in cases where it grants it to complainants – in short, in sex cases.”

She added: “Defendants in a sex cases are often subjected to excruciating exposure of their private lives and foibles from which there may be no recovery. It is no exaggeration to say that the life of an acquitted defendant can be ruined by the experience.

“In some cases the issue is whether the act occurred; in many, whether it was consensual.”

The retired judge said: “It strikes me also that sexual allegations can be in a class of their own, in that they are likely to be made against people whom society would in no other way regard as “criminals”, people like our friends, family, sons and daughters, who go adrift in the uncharted waters of permissive sexuality.”

She rebuffed claims that to introduce anonymity would be the thin end of the wedge, adding: “It strikes me this argument is primarily advanced by the tabloids (and other media) reluctant to forgo their salacious column inches. It is notable how any sex case involving a public person or one connected to royalty, the aristocracy, or one of our more prestigious universities gets blow-by-blow coverage, when the everyday sex case does not.”

One argument offered in favour of naming is that it can encourage other “victims” to come forward, especially in high-profile cases. However, the judge said that where a celebrity is accused there would be no cost in failing to name them until they are convicted.

She said: “The conviction and the evidence in the first trial would likely be admissible in any subsequent one, adding strength to the case without loss of justice.”