Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

Cathy.C

Just reading yet another case there were someone was accused of a serious crime, found not guilty but yet their name was published by the media throughout the trial which has been in the tabloids all week. How is this fair?

Navy officer is cleared of raping drunken colleague following VE ball

Sub Lieutenant Samuel Mitchell was cleared of raping a fellow cadet in her cabin following a VE ball at the Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, Devon, in May last year.

Mitchell, 27, showed no emotion as a panel of senior officers cleared him of two counts of rape following a four-day trial at Portsmouth Naval Base's court martial centre.

The woman claimed that she was too drunk to consent to sex, and that she asked him to fetch a condom as a means to get him out of her room. She admitted she had experienced an orgasm, but that it was an 'involuntary reaction'.

Mitchell told the court she had made 'pleasure noises' and told him he was 'amazing' and told him he was 'really good' at what he was doing.

Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces Jeff Blackett criticised Mitchell for taking advantage of the complainant's drunken state.

Another example is the strange case of Mark Pearson a few months back, who also had his name splashed all over the papers after he was charged with sexually assaulting a famous actress in a train station. Strange because from CCTV footage, which was available to the Police, all he seems to have done was walk passed her.

I suppose for some crimes it might not be that big of an issue to be named as being accused of them but quite clearly some crimes carry a heavy stigma and even if the person is found innocent of the charges, that stigma will quite possibly still stay with them. Future employers, partners etc could all quite easily find that information on them and could be of the opinion that while they may have been found not guilty, perhaps there was no smoke without fire.

So that would be my basis for saying that people that are accused of crimes should never be named. An argument that would be that in cases like Bill Cosby's naming the accused gives others the courage to come forward. Not sure I buy that reasoning as surely victims should make complaints as soon as humanely possibly and not just because others have now done so.


So, do you agree that those accused of crimes in the courts should be granted anonymity?

Or do you think society has a right to know who is being accused of just what in our courts?

Samaris

No, innocent until proven guilty and a person who may eventually be found innocent should not have to be tried and punished by the media as well.

It can also make it very hard to get an unbiased jury if a case is particularly attention-catching; people end up recusing themselves or being tossed out because they have obvious bias and know too much speculation about the case to be able to listen to the evidence and the evidence only.

I suppose one argument against is that the more secrecy around trials, the easier it is for corruption to creep in. Not to mention, it would be very hard to have public trials, which many of them are, while keeping the public (and any reporters in the room) quiet on who is on trial. I dunno, I suppose if the victims in the cases can have their names protected, maybe that isn't as big an issue as I'm thinking it to be.

the groutch

Definitely for rape/sexual assault, the victim is granted anonymity so why not the accused until found guilty?

monkeysnapper

I know 1st hand through my mother who was accused of a serious crime in a small town .

The police took it to court as accusations were serious and media put her on front pages of a local paper .

2 years going to court and the two people who accused her were caught lieing under interrogation .

Judge said case should never have gone to court and said he'd be making a complaint to police over how they ever should have brought case to court in first place .

But my poor mother had to go through this for over two years with fingers pointing at her when she was innocent .

Its all fun and games until you are the one accused and innocent and the media treading you through the mud.

Huge effect on my mothers health since and the familys stress .

Cathy.C

the groutch wrote: »

Definitely for rape/sexual assault, the victim is granted anonymity so why not the accused until found guilty?

Yeah it's crazy really, it's a wonder why we do it at all. Seems so pointless.

One young lad in the UK took his life last year such was the impact that the false accusation had upon him.

Vic_08

monkeysnapper wrote: »

I know 1st hand through my mother who was accused of a serious crime in a small town .

The police took it to court as accusations were serious and media put her on front pages of a local paper .

2 years going to court and the two people who accused her were caught lieing under interrogation .

Judge said case should never have gone to court and said he'd be making a complaint to police over how they ever should have brought case to court in first place .

But my poor mother had to go through this for over two years with fingers pointing at her when she was innocent .

Its all fun and games until you are the one accused and innocent and the media treading you through the mud.

Huge effect on my mothers health since and the familys stress .

Was any official action taken against the accusers?

Did you look into taking a defamation case against them? Only worth it if they have significant assets of course.

mynamejeff

monkeysnapper wrote: »

I know 1st hand through my mother who was accused of a serious crime in a small town .

The police took it to court as accusations were serious and media put her on front pages of a local paper .

2 years going to court and the two people who accused her were caught lieing under interrogation .

Judge said case should never have gone to court and said he'd be making a complaint to police over how they ever should have brought case to court in first place .

But my poor mother had to go through this for over two years with fingers pointing at her when she was innocent .

Its all fun and games until you are the one accused and innocent and the media treading you through the mud.

Huge effect on my mothers health since and the familys stress .

In serious cases the its the DPPs office (or the CPS in the uk) who makes the call about weather and which court to bring a case not the police.

just saying like ..........

monkeysnapper

Vic_08 wrote: »

Was any official action taken against the accusers?

Did you look into taking a defamation case against them? Only worth it if they have significant assets of course.

The two that accused her said they both witnessed the incident but said it happened in two different places!!! .

The police took statements over phone !!!!! Judge got fairly angry at police officer giving evidence .

You really couldn't make it up .

My mum was so worn out after trial she didn't want to take it further . The two accusers were scum and didn't have feck all money , wasn't worth the bother .

We were on our way to car after trial and two of the jurors approached us and wished us all well and told us the two were vicious bitches .

Solicitors wanted her to plead guilty because she was guaranteed a suspended sentence , but she took it all way and risked 2 year prison sentence, I'm so proud of her for having the courage .

Back on thread , the write up of trial in paper was very small compared to reports leading up to trial , that's the way media works .

My mother couldn't get a job after in her profession , she got job working in a school canteen for last 4 years up to her retirement .

Two Tone

Maybe it depends on the crime, but when it comes to serious ones: definitely I think. Trial by social media shouldn't be a thing and it's ridiculous that it is. Look at the idiocy and ignorance and ruthlessness out there. People who wouldn't think twice about destroying a life without evidence.

Your poor mother, monkeysnapper - that is just horrible.

CruelCoin

Absolutely they should.

If you're accused of say, child abuse/rape etc, and it turns out to be false, the false accusation sticks.

Your life is ruined just from having that stigma attached to you, because some people (read half the population) are stupid.

Full name discosure post sentence, but never before i reckon.

gramar

Cathy.C wrote: »

Another example is the strange case of Mark Pearson a few months back, who also had his name splashed all over the papers after he was charged with sexually assaulting a famous actress in a train station. Strange because from CCTV footage, which was available to the Police, all he seems to have done was walk passed her.

That was a bizarre case indeed. How the CPS thought that even needed to be investigated is beyond anyone. The person making the complaint should be charged for wasting police time and making false accusations/perverting the course of justice. Those investigating deserve some form of punishment too for taking it as far as they did.

tritium

gramar wrote: »

That was a bizarre case indeed. How the CPS thought that even needed to be investigated is beyond anyone. The person making the complaint should be charged for wasting police time and making false accusations/perverting the course of justice. Those investigating deserve some form of punishment too for taking it as far as they did.

That case was a particularly blatant example of the approach taken by the current head of the cps to "get tough" on sexual assault allegations. As usual swinging from one bad approach to another has just led to even more injustice, all that's happened is its moved to the other side if the spectrum. How anyone thinks this helps real victims in any way is beyond me (although plenty seem to have an innate non empirical certainty that it does)

Shenshen

I think my opinion on this might be considered extreme, but I don't believe names of anybody - accused, convicted, victim, witnesses - should ever be made public.

That's the law in the country I come from. Justice happens in court, and only in court. Cases can be reported, but without names.
The way I've seen people here obsess over criminal trials, where the names of the victims, the accused/convicted and everybody else remotely involved is broadcast far and wide in all media outlets shocked me massively. It may come across as a bit paternalistic, but I don't think it actually serves any purpose other than satisfying a certain desire for thrills in the general public.
And I've often wondered about the amount of innocent lives affected by it - name and shame the convicted to what end? So the public can shout their outrage in online forums and point fingers at the innocent family and make their lives even more of a hell than they already are?

BattleCorp

I can see the other side of the coin here too.

For example: A guy I know was abused by a teacher we had years ago. I didn't know anything about the abuse that was happening to him until years later he told me that he was going to take the teacher to court over the abuse. The teacher was convicted of abuse following the case.

The teacher's name was printed in the papers following the incident and this led to a landslide of people coming forward. The dirty bstard was abusing kids everywhere he taught.

This is an example of where it was good to name the individual.

I do see negative aspects of naming people too though.

Shenshen

BattleCorp wrote: »

I can see the other side of the coin here too.

For example: A guy I know was abused by a teacher we had years ago. I didn't know anything about the abuse that was happening to him until years later he told me that he was going to take the teacher to court over the abuse. The teacher was convicted of abuse following the case.

The teacher's name was printed in the papers following the incident and this led to a landslide of people coming forward. The dirty bstard was abusing kids everywhere he taught.

This is an example of where it was good to name the individual.

I do see negative aspects of naming people too though.

I agree, but I have seen similar things happening in my home country even without a particular name being given. The fact that a teacher, any teacher, was convicted was often enough for other victims to break their silence and come forward.

A good (well, not "good", but fitting) example were the attacks that happened in Cologne last New Year's Eve. On the night in question, police received some 20 complaints and reports of theft and women being groped. Once the newspapers published articles the next day, hundreds more came forward. I think it might be more the fact that the victims see the allegations made by others being taken seriously and investigated that would encourage them to report what happened to them rather than seeing a specific name.

Is there not one philosophical problem though?

I mean, if we can't name those who are actually the subject of charges, those who are even at an earlier stage of an investigation or who are never charged at all should have the same anonymity. So the press could not really make allegations about any identifiable person, would we just see "unnamed politician in corruption enquiry", "unnamed sports star takes drugs" type headlines? Surely the general rule should be those charged with wrongdoing should be identified?

AudreyHepburn

Of course you should have anonymity....it's worrying that such a question needs to be asked at all tbh.

You are innocent until proven guilty, no-one should have the right to drag your name through the mud until it's actually proven that you did commit a crime. Once you are convicted however I think you are fair game.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course you should have anonymity....it's worrying that such a question needs to be asked at all tbh.

You are innocent until proven guilty, no-one should have the right to drag your name through the mud until it's actually proven that you did commit a crime. Once you are convicted however I think you are fair game.

So you object, for example, to the publication of the names of Bertie Ahern in connection with wrongdoing?

Or how about accusations against Denis O'Brien?

Can the media not identify them and make allegations? Pre Tribunal findings? Post Tribunal findings if none of them are ever charged, let alone convicted?

I don't agree with this general assumption of a right to anonymity.

"There's no smoke without fire" - and that's the mentality that abounds. It is never right to publicly name somebody who is merely accused of a crime. If they are a danger to society, the state can have them remanded in custody or, better still, their trial asap. If somebody is named by our scumbag media as being accused of a crime, he (and it's usually a he) is condemned as guilty by a large section of society. Granted, that section is invariably a bigoted, closed-minded and ignorant section, but those aspersions are cast upon an innocent person forever.

In a very small society such as ours where reputation matters so much more, this "guilty even when proven innocent" mentality affects careers and families for a lifetime. There are so very many instances of innocent people being named as "accused" of a crime. This issue really does not get enough publicity by its very nature: anybody protesting his innocence is subject to the "no smoke without fire" mentality. That priest in Ballyfermot who was hounded out of his job only for years later the guy who accused him admitted he made it all up to extort money out of the priest. Paul Anderson got a mere four years, for destroying the life of a good, honourable man.

Why, for instance, is Eileen Culloty of Co. Kerry still free to hound this priest? I get there's great hatred towards the CC, but an innocent man is an innocent man, and innocent people should be protected from people who try to destroy any of our short lives.


This is before we get to the case of Michael Feichin Hannon in Conamara, who in 1997 was accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to four years in prison (which was suspended). Fast forward to 2009 and the 10-year-old girl is now 22-year-old Úna Hardester. She contacts AGS and makes a statement to them admitting that the allegation was all made up because her family were engaged in a feud over land with the Hannons. Between the ages of 22 in 1997 and 34 in 2009, formative years of any person's adulthood, Michael Hannon lived with the scar of this conviction on his name in a small area of rural Ireland. Neither of Úna Hardester's parents have spent a day in prison for what they did to that innocent man.

1. NY woman recants sexual assault charge in Ireland

2. Úna Hardester's mother speaks

3. Michael Feichin Hannon: sex assault case a miscarriage of justice (The Irish Times, 28 April 2009)

4. Hannon case declared miscarriage of justice (RTÉ, 27 April 2009)

B0jangles

I though it was one of the core tenets of a fair judicial system to have the process be open and visible?

Also, say someone was accused of a crime which involved them being in a particular place at a particular time, but unknown to the defendant, you knew absolutely they were somewhere else at that time. If the process were kept secret you'd have no idea that your testimony was important so they could end up convicted before you even knew they were in trouble.

Stealthfins

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

Sometimes a loved one or someone they look up to are misbehaving,so the emotional or needy connection cannot be severed at any cost.

I say out every last one of them.
It's better to know who you're employing or giving a moral or secure responsibilities to.

I've seen X criminals get promoted and if their employers knew their past shenanigan s and seeds of deception,lying and how they manipulate situations they'd be out the door.

Out every last one of them.

I'm all for forgiveness but wary all the same.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

"There's no smoke without fire" - and that's the mentality that abounds. It is never right to publicly name somebody who is merely accused of a crime.

I think the opposite, I think we are generally entitled to know. We are entitled to know allegations made against bankers, against politicians, even against Judges like Brian Curtin, accused of possessing child pornography but the case failed because of an illegal search carried out after a warrant had expired.

For example, do posters here object to the identification of Christy Kinehan in association with gangland crime?

Deleted User wrote: »

This is before we get to the case of Michael Feichin Hannon in Conamara, who in 1997 was accused of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to four years in prison (which was suspended).

Not sure why that is included.

Are you saying even convicted people are entitled to anonymity in case the conviction was on the basis of a false allegation?

pragmatic1

Without a doubt, especially in a small country like Ireland. Even being accused of a crime, especially if it was sexual in nature, could ruin a persons reputation for life.

Deise Vu

I don't see how anything is gained by publishing someone's name prior to a conviction. If they are found innocent, then surely they are entitled not to have references made to the trial for the rest of their lives. If someone goes before the courts it means the DPP thought there was sufficient evidence to justify a trial. This might be just mis-identification by a witness but the stigma will always remain "he was taken to court but they couldn't prove it".

I would also advocate for free legal aid for everyone. It must be crushing to lose all your savings to prove your innocence when scumbags cost the state millions with spurious appeals.

enda1

I'd propose a compromise perhaps. That the defendant's name is not published until trial day 1. That means that is the DPP can not build a case - the defendant remains anonymous and if the trial is to go ahead, there's a requirement as a tenant of a functional judicial system that there is media/public transparency.

inforfun

Coming from a country where neither an accused or convicted criminal ends up with his/her full name in the press, i think there should be a combination of the 2.
Name (and shame) after being found guilty only.

OldNotWIse

CruelCoin wrote: »

Absolutely they should.

If you're accused of say, child abuse/rape etc, and it turns out to be false, the false accusation sticks.

Your life is ruined just from having that stigma attached to you, because some people (read half the population) are stupid.

Full name discosure post sentence, but never before i reckon.

Wasn't there a case a while ago where a paediatrician was attacked in his home by an angry vigilante mob who though the "paed" prefix meant he was a paedophile? Mud does indeed stick and people are indeed stupid.

For those who say it absolutely should not be allowed, do ye object to me referring to Christy Kinehan and Brain Curtin above?

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

For those who say it absolutely should not be allowed, do ye object to me referring to Christy Kinehan and Brain Curtin above?

There are two sides to that coin too though. It's grand when it's not you or your family being accused of something.

You mightn't be too impressed if myself and a friend decided to stitch you up. Imagine I went to the cops and said that Conor74 fiddled with my bits in the swimming pool when I was a kid and my friend saw it happen. That might be enough for the Gardai to start to investigate and maybe bring charges.

Do you think that kind of thing should be reported? Like what happened with Cliff Richard. He wasn't even charged and his name was all over the papers.

You might easily have an alibi and be proven to have been on Mars when the alleged offence happened, but once the allegation is made, it's always out there in one form or other.

I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying that there are downsides to publicizing every and any accusation made against people.

It's probably impossible to find a happy medium that is fair to all.

Kiith

Innocent until proven guilty. Dragging someone's name through the mud without their being a conviction is disgusting carry on. Though i'd expect no less from the usual rags that call themselves newspapers.

Maireadio

gramar wrote: »

That was a bizarre case indeed. How the CPS thought that even needed to be investigated is beyond anyone. The person making the complaint should be charged for wasting police time and making false accusations/perverting the course of justice.

Absolutely. It was a false accusation.

VisibleGorilla

Yes of course.

Cathy.C

gramar wrote: »

That was a bizarre case indeed. How the CPS thought that even needed to be investigated is beyond anyone. The person making the complaint should be charged for wasting police time and making false accusations/perverting the course of justice. Those investigating deserve some form of punishment too for taking it as far as they did.

Without question. Here's an interview with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIG7nXR4LZQ

tritium

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

There is of course a difference between being a criminal and being accused of a crime, you get that right?

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

I though it was one of the core tenets of a fair judicial system to have the process be open and visible?

If we took that to its obvious point we'd also name the accusers. Would you be in favour of that?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I believe the person who made the false accusation in the above mentioned case is part of the Game Of Thrones cast. And older woman I believe.

I don't watch it so have no idea who she is.

B0jangles

Hang on, I've just been looking at the DPP's website and it says that in rape and sexual assault cases both the accused and the victim have the right not to have their name revealed - the accused loses that right on conviction:

https://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice-system/category/5/#a36

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, I've just been looking at the DPP's website and it says that in rape and sexual assault cases both the accused and the victim have the right not to have their name revealed - the accused loses that right on conviction:

https://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice-system/category/5/#a36

Correct for Ireland, though there are freasonaby frequent calls to change to for the accused in line with the UK. Given the more local nature of Irish society I doubt it will happen though equally anonymity is harder to meaningfully enforce. In the UK there were move to change back to the Irish model which were subject to very high profile lobbying campaigns

seamus

The principal is fine - that all cases should be heard in public to ensure the transparency of the justice system. Cases being heard behind closed doors leaves room for corruption & injustice.

However, that principle comes from a time before we were so well interconnected. And well before we understand the suggestibility and falliability of the human mind.

The freedom of the press to report at all on ongoing cases should probably be restricted. Continue to hold court proceedings in public, record them on video and keep transcriptions. But make it a criminal offence to publish any details of who is in court and what evidence was heard that day. Only when the jury returns with a verdict should the press be then permitted to report on it. And the court system should publish the video of the trial for a period of 2 years and the transcripts permanently, free for all to access and reveiew to their hearts' content.

Thus, while the anonymity of an accused person is not guaranteed (pub gossip can't be clamped down on), they are at least protected from seeing themselves splashed all over the media until a verdict has been returned. At which point the media will be required to state guilty or not guilty rather than being able to imply anything.

This works the other way too - some lunatics love the attention. This restriction would starve them of that attention until they're locked up and incapable of enjoying it.

If the public is really interested, the media can still say, "the trial of a person for the murder of Joe Bloggs began today", etc.

Anyone who is actually interested in the case is free to go to the courtroom and watch it.

Anyone who is interested from a curiosity point of view will have full and unrestricted access to the video and transcript of the trial.

But everyone else - like the 99% of use - who's just a justice porn voyeur won't get the satisfaction of having our opinion formed in the way that the media wants it to be.

Saipanne

Cathy.C wrote: »

Yeah it's crazy really, it's a wonder why we do it at all. Seems so pointless.

One young lad in the UK took his life last year such was the impact that the false accusation had upon him.

Feminists, take note.

Stealthfins

tritium wrote:

There is of course a difference between being a criminal and being accused of a crime, you get that right?

A criminal is someone convicted for a crime.

I never mentioned someone accused of a crime.

tritium

Stealthfins wrote: »

A criminal is someone convicted for a crime.

I never mentioned someone accused of a crime.

Equally I don't think too many people here are looking for anonymity for convicts. Its not actually what was asked either......

A Dub in Glasgo

People are conflating two different scenarios into one

First scenario - people accused of a crime - named or not
Second scenario - people convicted of a crime - named or not

My view is not for the first one and named for the second one

Two Tone

Still cannot see how it would be of benefit to name while the accused has not been found guilty. I know some examples of this happening to a positive end were given, but if/when they are convicted they can be named to peoples' hearts' content.

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

Sometimes a loved one or someone they look up to are misbehaving,so the emotional or needy connection cannot be severed at any cost.

I say out every last one of them.
It's better to know who you're employing or giving a moral or secure responsibilities to.

I've seen X criminals get promoted and if their employers knew their past shenanigan s and seeds of deception,lying and how they manipulate situations they'd be out the door.

Out every last one of them.

I'm all for forgiveness but wary all the same.

The thread asks just in relation to the accused though, not the convicted.

Two Tone

Two Tone wrote: »

Still cannot see how it would be of benefit to name while the accused has not been found guilty.

Because it is a tangent to freedom of the press, that the press can make accusations of wrongdoing against people and, if they are wrong, they put their money where their mouth in terms of the exposure to defamation litigation. The press and media make allegations of wrongdoing every day, it would seem to me that if there is some ban on doing so until one is convicted it could see a serious inroad in the freedom of the press. Maybe it could be considered in some very narrow context, like people accused of sexual offences, but I would be against some blanket ban as it would become a charter for rogues.

wakka12

I think revealing people's names does nothing but encourage witch hunts or mob mentality which can put a potentially innocent person in danger. Regardless of what the person has done even if theyre guilty, I still think everyone has a right to personal privacy and safety from vigilante justice

Cathy.C

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I believe the person who made the false accusation in the above mentioned case is part of the Game Of Thrones cast. And older woman I believe.

I don't watch it so have no idea who she is.

Yeah, her name was leaked a while back.

Here's something quite weird. If you Google her name and nothing else but her name, the Daily Mail article about the case is the third result that comes up, but yet they don't name her in that article.

Seems kinda odd.

mynamejeff

monkeysnapper wrote: »

The two that accused her said they both witnessed the incident but said it happened in two different places!!! .

The police took statements over phone !!!!! Judge got fairly angry at police officer giving evidence .

You really couldn't make it up .

My mum was so worn out after trial she didn't want to take it further . The two accusers were scum and didn't have feck all money , wasn't worth the bother .

We were on our way to car after trial and two of the jurors approached us and wished us all well and told us the two were vicious bitches .

Solicitors wanted her to plead guilty because she was guaranteed a suspended sentence , but she took it all way and risked 2 year prison sentence, I'm so proud of her for having the courage .

Back on thread , the write up of trial in paper was very small compared to reports leading up to trial , that's the way media works .

My mother couldn't get a job after in her profession , she got job working in a school canteen for last 4 years up to her retirement .

Hang on there where are you saying this happened ?

The police took statements over the phone ?? There was no written statement? no signed statement ?

and the case was before a jury ? so circuit court at least in Ireland would have gone through the officer dealing with it two layers of supervision then the DPPs office and then the state solicitors office and barristers for advice on proofs before everything got handed over to the defense pre trial and no one picked up on a very basic issue that would make the whole case
impossible to prosecute in any western country

I CALL BS

Stealthfins

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

Thread title: Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

Being accused of a crime and being convicted of a crime are not synonymous. Nobody accused of a crime is a criminal of that crime until they are convicted. The difference should be obvious. There are many times in life when innocent people are falsely accused of something. It is a double injustice to take their good name by publicising their name when they are merely accused of a crime.

And do you mean 'skeletons in the cupboard' rather than 'cats in the bag'?

Two Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it is a tangent to freedom of the press, that the press can make accusations of wrongdoing against people and, if they are wrong, they put their money where their mouth in terms of the exposure to defamation litigation. The press and media make allegations of wrongdoing every day, it would seem to me that if there is some ban on doing so until one is convicted it could see a serious inroad in the freedom of the press. Maybe it could be considered in some very narrow context, like people accused of sexual offences, but I would be against some blanket ban as it would become a charter for rogues.

The Eamon Cooke case has made me reconsider my stance on this. Depends on the individual case I think. If Cooke was still alive and that allegation came out, not gonna be losing sleep about his anonymity.

Two Tone

Two Tone wrote: »

The Eamon Cooke case has made me reconsider my stance on this. Depends on the individual case I think. If Cooke was still alive and that allegation came out, not gonna be losing sleep about his anonymity.

But what about the other people who are alleged to have done something they never did? Should they be named just because some alleged people are ultimately found guilty? No, I don't believe justice lies there. The best way to handle this is investigate such allegations comprehensively first, bring the accused to court, and then if found guilty they can be named.