Rape anonymity - u turn does not reflect change in motivation

This blog comes from Lucy James, Research Fellow at Quilliam the world’s first counter extremism think thank.

With an estimated 47,000 victims of rape in the UK every year, and around only one in twenty reported rapes leading to a successful conviction (although this has begun to increase), everyone agrees that we need to do something to improve the justice surrounding perpetrators of rape and sexual abuse.

Everyone, it seems, except certain sections of the coalition government who, in nine words hidden in the coalition’s government agenda, announced at the end of May that ‘We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants’.

As with all crimes, false accusations can be incredibly damaging for individuals involved and deserve due consideration. However, there appears to be no solid evidence that false accusations are higher for cases of rape than other crimes and, moreover, there are numerous arguments that highlight the potential dangers of such a proposal including the damaging impact it could have on conviction rates (for example, see here and here). Consequently it remains unclear as to why rape was singled out in this way.

It is not the first time. Originally introduced by a Labour government in 1976 as part of the Sexual Offences Act, anonymity for rape defendants was finally scrapped in 1988 by the Tories. The issue again resurfaced in 2003 after the Tories raised it in relation to the Sexual Offences Bill. It has also been Lib Dem policy since 2006 (although it was not mentioned in their election manifesto).

Such inconsistency in the application and support of this law in the past would imply that any reapplication should be based on well-thought out arguments and solid evidence. However, despite a clear need for hard facts, the most striking aspect of this whole debate has been the astounding lack of evidence put forward by the motion’s proponents throughout.

Due to the misgivings of various MPs, at the beginning of July the issue was put forward by Caroline Flint MP as a motion for an adjournment debate in the House of Commons. Crispin Blunt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice, defended the motion. He claimed that opponents to the proposal must ‘turn to evidence rather than supposition’ and, specifically, that (when making the case that a significant proportion of rapists become serial offenders) ‘there appeared to be insufficient data to form a reliable evidential picture’. In fairness, those rejecting the motion during this debate could have solidified their arguments with the use of statistical data. Yet it still remains startling hypocritical that Blunt could make such assertions given the whimsical and vacuous nature of the arguments he put forward himself.

Blunt’s central argument rested on the supposition that sex crimes “are of an entirely different order”. In the House of Commons debate he ‘elaborated’: “Rape is such a serious and emotive crime that it attracts both a high degree of stigma for the defendant and a disproportionate degree of media interest. The combination of those factors distinguishes rape from other crimes”.

Despite declaring that he had ‘sound reasons’ for this motion, what constituted ‘a high degree of stigma’ or a ‘disproportionate degree of media interest’ remained unspecified. It was therefore left unsubstantiated as to why other criminal offences, such as paedophilia, were not also included under the motion. At a time when conviction rates, although unacceptably low, have been rising, such apparently off-the-cuff legislation could have a profoundly detrimental impact.
Even during the adjournment debate, Blunt appeared to be backtracking, for example that he had “no intention of extending similar protections to rape defendants once convicted” (having previously provided no ‘timescale’ for anonymity). It therefore perhaps came as little surprise that, at the end of July, there was an apparent government ‘u-turn’ on this policy. In a rather impromptu briefing given to the Sunday Telegraph it was announced that anonymity would not be granted to defendants. Blunt declared that he instead wanted a “non-statutory solution”, and would go down the route of lobbying the Press Complaints Commission to ask them to issue guidance recommending media outlets not to identify rape defendants before they are charged.

What is important, however, is that, regardless of the legal u-turn, the motivations of Blunt and his government allies have not changed. Blunt explained that, “Given that we had 21 criminal justice acts passed over the 13 years of the last administration, I am sure that Labour [MPs] will understand why we are loath to find even more statutes to put on the statute book”. The u-turn was not made on the basis that it would be singling out one crime over others, and sending out the wrong message to those who had recently experienced the trauma of rape, but was instead done on the basis that the law book was full. In addition, new legislation may not have been fully written off as the Ministry of Justice is reported to have ‘played down Mr Blunt’s remarks’ and insisted ‘it had not entirely ruled out legislation to provide anonymity between arrest and charge’.

In many ways we are therefore back where we started. Key questions remain unanswered: why were cases of rape and sexual abuse singled out in the first place? Concerns are the same – change will just be sought through ways that avoid adding more pages to the statute book.

The result of the current review is now due when parliament reconvenes in September. It still remains to be seen entirely what action the government is going to take. Perhaps the legal battle is over, but even if this is the case, the war is far from won. That the current justice minister is simply finding alternative procedures to implement the same policy does little to allay any fears. These latest announcements give little cause for celebration – there is still work to be done.
———————————–
Progressive Women join organizations such as Rights of Women, to urge you to continue lobbying and writing to your MPs in order to get them to add their name to the list of signatories for Fiona Taggert’s Early Day Motion. A list of current signatories can be viewed here.