Suella Braverman said she would consider giving anonymity to suspected criminals.

Why people accused of sexual offences should not have statutory anonymity

A common complaint among readers is that those accused of sexual offences are dragged through the press, while their accusers enjoy anonymity.

Those accused of sexual offences do not have any statutory anonymity, whereas those who claim to have been the victim of a sexual offence, as listed in s.2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992, are given lifelong anonymity under s.1 of the Act.

The complainant’s anonymity remains in force even if the allegation is later withdrawn or the police discontinue the case or the defendant is acquitted at trial.

Those in favour of reform say the system is “manifestly unjust”. How can someone who is innocent have their reputation destroyed by a false allegation?

However, not every allegation which is later withdrawn is false and not everyone who is acquitted at trial is innocent.

Those who are alleged to be the victim of a sexual offence have lifelong anonymity.

Lord Keith of Kinkel, in Spring v Guardian Assurance [1994] UKHL, articulated the “public interest” in communicating a “suspicion” about a prospective employee when writing a reference.

He argued: “Another field of employment where frankness is of the greatest importance is that where contact with children is involved. It may be very difficult to prove that a person has interfered with young children, yet there may be grounds for suspecting it. The public interest demands that the existence of such suspicion should not be suppressed.”

The former employee who received such a reference may protest that no allegation against them had been proven, but arguably that individual’s welfare is less important than the paramount interest of safeguarding children.

Extrapolating the same logic to media reporting, arguably the public’s right to know about the existence of a mere suspicion in cases of alleged sexual offending is of greater importance than the right to privacy of the individual accused.

Sexual offences are notoriously difficult to prove. They often involve historical allegations, as victims can take years to come forward. In many cases, there is little evidence other than the testimony of the complainant, who may be young or vulnerable or both. A jury may be left with “his word against hers”. Reviewing lawyers therefore might conclude there is no realistic prospect of conviction and not press charges.

Football coach Bob Higgins was only convicted decades after he first went on trial.

In 1991, former Southampton football coach Bob Higgins went on trial accused of indecent assault against six young players in his care. He was acquitted of one charge and the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the others on grounds of insufficient evidence.

At the time, it could have been said Higgins’ life had been destroyed. He even managed to secure an interview with a local newspaper, headlined: “My two years of hell”.

Higgins was jailed for over 24 years in June 2019. He had been convicted after trial of sexually abusing 24 victims over a period spanning more than two decades.

Nobody can look back now over the disturbing timeline of Higgins’ offending and feel confident the trial in the 1990s came to the correct result. Would children have been safer if Higgins had enjoyed statutory anonymity throughout the decades?

That is one of the key questions which the new Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, will need to answer if she keeps her pledge to examine the possibility of giving anonymity to suspected criminals.