SubScribe14
  • SubScribe commentary
  • The schedule
    • Celebrities >
      • Robin Williams and suicide reporting
      • George Clooney v Daily Mail, round 3
      • Are we playing fair with celebrities?
      • L'Wren Scott's death and Mick Jagger's grief
      • Jill Dando
      • Alain de Botton and Philip Seymour Hoffman
      • Wendi Deng and Rebekah Wade love letters
      • Elizabeth Hurley
      • Gwyneth Paltrow
      • William Roache
    • Crime >
      • The release of Harry Roberts
      • Alan Henning and Alice Gross
      • Dave Lee Travis and Operation Yewtree
      • Rotherham child sex exploitation
      • Operation Tuleta
      • Rolf Harris and Andy Coulson sentencing
      • Maxine Carr's wedding
      • Ann Maguire stabbing
      • Stephen Lawrence and police corruption: time to sit up and take notice
      • The Mirror and Jill Dando
      • William Roache acquitted
      • Rape cases never have a happy ending
      • Lee Rigby and the law of contempt
      • Michael Le Vell: don't shoot the messenger
      • Madeleine McCann: missing an opportunity
      • Maria the 'Greek Madeleine'
    • Foreign Affairs >
      • David Haines and Isis propaganda
      • The murder of Steven Sotloff
      • James Foley murdered
      • Nigeria's abducted girls and massacre
      • Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls
      • Al Jazeera on trial: why should we care about journalists?
      • Al Jazeera on trial: the final session
      • Al Jazeera on trial: Abdullah Elshamy
      • Al Jazeera on trial: Peter Greste
      • Al Jazeera on trial: the court hearings
      • Peter Greste sent back to jail as Al-Jazeera journalists' trial is adjourned
      • Al-Jazeera journalists refused bail in Egypt
      • Frontline reporting
      • Putin, the Man of Destiny, and dreams of a Eurasian empire
      • Putin wants more than Crimea, he wants half of Ukraine
      • Ukraine revolution and the threat to the West
      • Obama's selfie
      • Typhoon Haiyan
    • Gender Issues >
      • It takes all sorts to make a family
      • This is what a flawed feminist campaign looks like
      • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Kellie Maloney faces the world
      • Cheerleading
      • Pregnant soldiers
      • Women in trouble for getting ahead
      • Doris Lessing, Helen Mirren and silly sexist tokenism
      • Bank notes campaign
    • Health and Beauty >
      • Ebola
      • Ashya King and the force of authority
      • Robin Williams and suicide reporting
      • Sun boobs with page 3 breast cancer campaign
      • Stephen's story: did the Press help his cause or take over his life?
      • Anorexia, bulimia and high-achieving students
      • Colchester cancer scandal
      • New year diets
      • Food for thought: will red meat kill you?
    • Obituary >
      • Robin Williams and suicide reporting
      • Chapman Pincher
      • Rik Mayall and the trouble with death
      • Tony Benn: why we shouldn't speak ill of the dead
      • Thatcher and Crow: speaking ill of the dead
      • Bob Crow wins last media battle
      • Fred Sanger
      • Nelson Mandela
      • Doris Lessing
    • Politics >
      • Poppymania
      • Cameron's tax cut promise
      • Brooks Newmark sting
      • Scottish referendum >
        • Scottish referendum: the final editions
        • Scottish referendum miscellany
        • The Queen speaks
      • Politicians need their holidays too
      • Cameron's reshuffle: bring on the women
      • Food banks
      • The European elections audit >
        • Election audit: the last wordle
        • Election audit: Daily Mail
        • Election audit: The Times
        • Election audit: Daily Express
        • Election audit: Daily Mirror
        • Election audit: The Independent
        • Election audit: Guardian
        • Election audit: Daily Telegraph
        • Election audit: The Sun
      • Maria Miller
      • The blue-rinse bingo Budget
      • Harman, Hewitt and the paedophiles
      • Hewitt apologises and the Sun picks up the cudgels
      • Mail v Labour trio, day 6: Harman capitulates and the bully wins
      • David Miranda detention matters to us all
      • Education >
        • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Immigration >
        • A year of xenophobia
        • The Express and immigration
      • The Royal Family >
        • Prince Charles and the floods
        • Prince George
      • Sport >
        • Cheerleading
        • Kelly Gallagher beats the world
        • Why is football more important than all the news?
        • Jenny Jones struggles against Kate and ManU
      • The weather >
        • Smog
  • Journalists in court
  • Phone hacking
  • The Brooks-Coulson trial
    • Hacking trial: sentences
    • Hacking trial: commentary
    • Hacking trial: background
    • Hacking trial: reportage and comment
    • Hacking trial: press coverage
    • Hacking trial: verdict and reaction
    • Hacking trial: sentencing hearing
    • Hacking trial: mitigation
    • Hacking trial: Rebekah speaks
    • Hacking trial: mainstream Press
    • Hacking trial: periodicals
    • Hacking trial: Guardian
    • Hacking trial: Independent
    • Hacking trial: The Times
    • Hacking trial: Daily Telegraph
    • Hacking trial: The whitetops
    • Hacking trial: The redtops
    • Hacking trial: evidence
  • Nationals
    • Express
    • Guardian
    • Independent
    • The i
    • Mail
    • Mirror
    • Daily Star
    • Sun
    • Telegraph
    • Times
  • OpEd
    • OpEd: UK politics 24-12-14
    • OpEd: 23-12-14 Christmas
    • OpEd: 22-12-14 UK politics
    • OpEd: 19-12-14 North Korea
    • OpEd: 18-12-14 British politics
    • OpEd: 17-12-14 UK politics
    • OpEd: 16-12-14 UK politics
    • OpEd: CIA torture 15-12-14
    • OpEd: UK politics 12-12-14
    • OpEd: CIA torture 11-12-14
    • OpEd: CIA torture 10-12-14
    • OpEd: British politics 09-12-14
    • OpEd: British politics 08-12-14
    • OpEd: Autumn Statement 05-12-14
    • OpEd: Autumn Statement 04-12-14
    • OpEd: Autumn Statement 03-12-14
    • OpEd: Gordon Brown 02-12-14
    • OpEd: Black Friday 01-12-14
    • OpEd: Scottish finance 28-11-14
    • OpEd: European politics 27-11-14
    • OpEd: David Mellor 26-11-14
    • OpEd: Lewis Hamilton 25-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 24-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 21-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 20-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 19-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 18-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 17-11-14
    • OpEd: Labour 14-11-14
    • OpEd: forex scandal 13-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 12-11-14
    • OpEd: the Labour Party 11-11-14
    • OpEd: Ed Miliband 10-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 07-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 06-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 05-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 04-11-14
    • OpEd: space tourism 03-11-14
    • OpEd: British politics 31-10-14
    • OpEd: immigration 30-10-14
    • OpEd: immigration 29-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 28-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 27-10-14
    • OpEd: NHS 24-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 23-10-14
    • OpEd: Ukip 22-10-14
    • OpEd: Britain and EU 21-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 20-10-14
    • OpEd: Lord Freud 17-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 16-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 15-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 14-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 13-10-14
    • OpEd: Isis and UK politics 10-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 09-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 08-09-14
    • OpEd: LibDem conference 07-10-14
    • OpEd: British politics 06-10-14
    • OpEd: party conferences 03-10-14
    • OpEd: Cameron's speech 02-10-14
    • OpEd: Conservative conference 01-10-14
    • OpEd: Conservative conference 30-09-14
    • OpEd: Conservative conference 29-09-14
    • OpEd: War on Isis 26-09-14
    • OpEd: Labour conference 25-09-14
    • OpEd: Miliband's speech 24-09-14
    • OpEd: Labour conference 23-09-14
    • OpEd: Referendum fallout 22-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 19-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 18-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 17-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 16-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 15-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 12-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 11-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 10-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 09-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 08-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish referendum 05-09-14
    • OpEd: Nato and Isis threat 04-09-14
    • OpEd: Scottish independence 03-09-14
    • OpEd: Nude photographs 02-09-14
    • OpEd: British politics 01-09-14
    • OpEd: Ukip defection 29-08-14
    • OpEd: Rotherham sex abuse 28-08-14
    • OpEd: Islamic militants 27-08-14
    • OpEd: Middle East 26-08-14
    • OpEd: James Foley 22-08-14
    • OpEd: James Foley 21-08-14
    • OpEd: British politics 20-08-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 19-08-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 18-08-14
    • OpEd: A levels 15-08-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 14-08-14
    • OpEd: Robin Williams 13-08-14
    • OpEdL Iraq 12-08-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 11-08-14
    • OpEd: Boris Johnson 08-08-14
    • OpEd: Boris Johnson 07-08-14
    • OpEd: Warsi resignation 06-08-14
    • OpEd: First World War centenary 05-08-14
    • OpEd: Gaza 04-08-14
    • OpEd: British politics 01-08-14
    • OpEd: Gaza 31-07-14
    • OpEd: British politics 30-07-14
    • OpEd: British politics 29-07-14
    • OpEd: Gaza 28-07-14
    • OpEd: Gaza 25-07-14
    • OpEd: EU and Russia 24-07-14
    • OpEd: Flight MH17 23-07-14
    • OpEd: Flight MH17 22-07-14
    • OpEd: Flight MH17 21-07-14
    • oped: Gaza 18-07-14
    • OpEd: Cameron's reshuffle 17-07-14
    • OpEd: Cameron's reshuffle 16-07-14
    • OpEd: Cameron's reshuffle 15-07-14
    • OpEd: British politics 14-07-2014
    • OpEd: public sector strikes 11-07-14
    • OpEd: public sector strikes 10-07-14
    • OpEd: sex abuse 09-07-14
    • OpEd Sex abuse 08-07-14
    • OpEd: Westminster child abuse 07-07-2014
    • OpEd: Middle East 04-07-14
    • OpEd: Ed Miliband 03-07-14
    • OpEd British politics: 02-07-14
    • OpEd: edeucation 01-07-14
    • OpEd: Britain and Europe 30-06-14
    • OpEd: Britain and Europe 27-06-14
    • OpEd: Luis Suárez 26-06-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 25-06-14
    • OpEd: British politics 24-06-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 23-06-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 20-06-14
    • OpEd: British politics, 19-06-14
    • OpEd: British politics, 18-06-2014
    • OpEd: Iraq 17-06-14
    • OpEd: Tony Blair 16-06-14
    • OpEd: Iraq 13-06-14
    • OpEd: Oxfam, baby buggies, World Cup 12-06-14
    • OpEd: education and British values 11-06-14
    • OpEd: extremist education 10-06-14
    • OpEd: May v Gove 09-06-14
  • The columnists
  • Regionals
    • Regional Press Awards 2013
    • Local newspaper week
    • Local papers matter
    • Reading Chronicle and football hooliganism
    • Time for change
    • Monty's vision
    • The Full Monty: the Local World vision put into practice
    • The Pirates of Parkham
    • Colchester cancer scandal
  • Backnumbers
    • Weekend papers Dec 27-28
    • Front pages Dec 22-26, 2014
    • Weekend papers Dec 20-21
    • Front pages Dec 15-19
    • Weekend front pages Dec 13-14
    • Front pages Dec 8-12
    • Weekend papers Dec 6-7
    • Front pages Dec 1-5
    • Weekend papers Nov 29-30
    • Front pages Nov 24-28
    • Weekend papers Nov 22-23
    • Front pages Nov 17-21
    • Weekend papers Nov 15-16
    • Front pages Nov 10-14
    • Weekend papers Nov 8-9
    • Front pages Nov 3-7
    • Weekend papers Nov 1-2
    • Front pages Oct 27-31
    • Weekend papers Oct 25-26, 2014
    • Front pages Oct 20-24
    • Weekend papers Oct 18-19, 2014
    • Front pages Oct 12-17
    • Front pages Oct 5-11
    • Front pages Sept 28-Oct 4
    • front pages Sept 21-27
    • Front pages Sept 14-20
    • front pages Sept 7-13 2014
    • front pages Aug 31-Sep 6
    • Front pages Aug 24-30, 2014
    • Front pages August 17-23, 2014
    • Front pages, Aug 10-16, 2014
    • Front pages, Aug 3-9, 2014
    • Front pages July 27-August2, 2014
    • Front pages July 20-26, 2014
    • front pages July 13-19, 2014
    • Front pages: July 6-12, 2014
    • Front pages June 29-July 5, 2014
    • Front pages June 22-28, 2014
    • Front pages June 15-21
    • Front pages June 8-14, 2014
    • Front pages June 1-7, 2014
    • Nationals May 25-31
    • Front pages May 18-24 >
      • Press review: 24-05-14
      • Press review: 21-05-14
      • Press review: 20-05-14
    • Front pages May 11-17 >
      • Press review 15-05-14
      • Press review 14-05-14
      • Press review 13-05-14
      • Press review 12-05-14
    • front pages May 4-10, 2014 >
      • The review 09-05-14
      • The review 08-05-2014
      • The review 07-05-14
    • Front pages April 27-May 3 2014
    • Front pages April 20-26, 2014
    • Front pages April 13-19
    • Front pages April 6-12, 2014
    • The front pages March 30-April 5
    • The front pages March 23-29, 2014
    • front pages march 16-22
    • front pages March 9-15, 2014
    • front pages March 2-8, 2014
    • front pages Feb 23-Mar 1 2014
    • front pages Feb 16-22, 2014
    • The front pages Feb 9-15 2014
    • The front pages Feb 3-8, 2014
    • The front pages January 2014
  • You have to laugh
  • Blog archive
  • About SubScribe
  • Join the SubScribers
  • Contact us
  • Cookie policy


Rape cases never end happily

Picture
Wednesday 11 September, 2013

 A victory for men? A defeat for women? A licence for sex offenders? A witch-hunt? A time to name and shame? A time to change the law?

One man is found not guilty of a series of sex offences and half the population dashes to the keyboard to denounce the other half. Seven hours of trudging through the quagmire of the papers, the blogosphere, legal websites, feminist websites, misogynist websites, has left the mud on my boots so thick that I can barely move. How did we become so cruel, so vitriolic, so bloody stupid?

Two years ago a 15-year-old girl went with her mother to the police to complain that the actor Michael Le Vell had raped her when she was six and continued to sexually assault her over the next eight years. Le Vell was arrested the next morning and questioned for a number of hours. Once the police had completed their investigation, the file was passed to the CPS, which decided not to proceed with the case.

After a  few weeks the girl returned to the police with fresh allegations and her mother asked for the case to be reviewed. Eleven months later - in February this year - Le Vell was again arrested and charged. Yesterday a jury found him not guilty of twelve sexual offences, including five of rape.

Given that the complaint was not made until a year after the alleged offences ceased, there was no physical evidence to incriminate Le Vell. It came down to his word against the girl's. The jury made its choice and Le Vell went not to jail, but to the pub.
Le Vell not guilty
He paused on the way to say the obligatory few words to the Press and at one point he dared to do the unthinkable - his sister put her arm round him, he looked back at her and he smiled. Until then he had seemed wary, almost diffident, his eyes uncertain. But once he saw that he was among friends, he relaxed. Later he relaxed a bit more and was photographed holding a pint and giving the thumbs-up sign.

The vision of a man who had been accused of rape looking not just relieved, but happy, was too much for some. Others had snapped much earlier - when the verdicts were announced. Women did not make false claims of rape; no one would go through the ordeal of taking a case to court if they were not telling the truth. Ergo, any man accused of rape must be guilty.

And even if he wasn't, he should still be convicted so that other, real, rape victims were not deterred from stepping forward. Better that ten/a hundred/a thousand innocent men suffer than one rapist goes unpunished.

An acquittal doesn't mean he didn't do it. #ibelieveher
— Maximilian Wallpaper (@max_wall_2000) September 10, 2013


We need to condemn the man, guilty or not, otherwise young girls will hesitate to accuse men of rape. #ibelieveher
— Rosa Morena (@Radical_Rosa) September 10, 2013


We need a presumption of guilt for #betterrapetrials #ibelieveher
— Sophy QX (@SophyQX) September 11, 2013

It wasn't only the jury - which included eight women - that got it 'wrong'. The prosecuting barrister was a bully who tried to undermine the credibility of the accuser, and the press coverage was a disgrace, peddling rape myths. (Why do people always peddle rather than perpetuate myths - is there a market price for them?)

The Guardian and the Independent were thought by one blogger to be so culpable that they should publish front-page apologies. Maybe I missed something, but I've gone through both papers' coverage and can see nothing but straight court reporting of the entire trial. Nothing is written that is not attributed to one of those participating in the trial - although it may be the case that the blogger was in court throughout and that there have been sins of omission.
Mail why was de Vell charged?
The Mail is much harder to defend. It once again showed its mastery of producing seemingly balanced coverage while actually weighting it with well-chosen verbs and adjectives. Le Vell was an innocent actor whose life had been hell for two years after being dragged in for questioning and hauled through the courts. 

Prosecution lawyers tried to portray him as a guilty 
man. He was taken apart on the witness stand in an attempt to expose every minor flaw in his character. His accuser, on the other hand, was a highly emotional teenager who gave evidence from behind a screen and embellished and changed her conflicting story at every turn. She made spurious claims and admissionsand has been exposed to everyone she knows and who matters to her as a liar.

Well, do you know, it is the job of prosecuting lawyers to portray defendants as guilty men, indeed to prove them to be so if they can. [It is also the case that defence lawyers will seek to undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses - who may sometimes also be the 'victim' of the alleged crime.]
Many witnesses, and not only in rape cases, give evidence from behind a screen or even by video link. There is nothing sinister in the fact.

For the most part the Mail's coverage was what you'd expect from the paper, but there was one unforgivable factoid in one piece that should be brought to the Attorney General's attention.
The Sun meanwhile published a front page of such misguided awfulness that it is hardly worth discussing. The 4-5 spread was a run-of-the-mill 'My two years of hell', but then the paper devoted most of 6 and 7 to making the same points three times - first as 'The weak case against Corrie star', then as a timeline 'How the girl's lies unravelled' and finally as a giant factbox comparing the girl's 'claims' with the 'reality'.
Sun Le Vell
Claim The girl said the sex attacks began when she was six and finished when she was 14.
Reality She did work experience on Coronation Street, aged 15, which Le Vell arranged to help her as she wanted to be an actress.

This might be an unlikely sequence of events, but the 'reality' could equally be a result of the 'claim', an attempt to make amends. Certainly neither one disproves the other.

Odd how people defend juries in sexual assault cases- until they acquit. Then they're all misogynist rape deniers. Ho hum. #ibelieveher
— Ben Gunn (@prisonerben) September 10, 2013

Back in cyberspace where all men are rapists and all women are moaners, there has been outrage at the assumption that the girl was lying and outrage that she should retain her anonymity.

Some believe that she should now be 'named and shamed' and  'dragged through the courts' on charges of perjury and wasting police time. There is also a revival of the call for rape case defendants to remain anonymous unless or until they are convicted.

The accuser in the #LeVell case should be named and shamed. He was found not guilty by his peers, the accuser should not be allowed to hide.
— ? (@ImAnEnigmaUK) September 11, 2013

There is a problem in this country, as elsewhere, in bringing sex offenders to justice. For many, many years any woman who made allegations of rape or lesser offences were disbelieved by police, subjected to insulting and undignified physical examinations and forced to reveal their life histories in court.

Picture

...and six days after the verdict...

Newspaper columns, breakfast TV sofas, websites, blogs, community forums have all been abuzz with the debate.

There are so many expert opinions  (SubScribe is obviously The Most Expert):  people who know what the prosecution said, what the girl said, what her mum said, what Le Vell said, what the doctors said, what the judge said.


And how do they know all  this, given that Manchester Crown Court couldn't have accommodated them all?


From the media.


Yet the media are being attacked from all sides for 'hype', for 'unbalanced reporting', for 'sensationalism', for 'perpetuating rape myths'.


Read Don't shoot the messenger on the old SubScribe blog

Some other views

Charity blasts cross-examination, Salford Online

Shockingly low conviction rates, the Independent

Rape myths, CPS

Guidelines on prosecuting rape cases, CPS

My Elegant Gathering of White Snows by Louise Pennington

'Not guilty'  does not mean she lied

Le Vell's character is stained, Fleet St Fox

Some thoughts on victim blaming and Le Vell by Glosswatch

Dangerous and persistent rape myths, Sian and Crooked Rib

A life ruined v a fate worse than death

Salem comes to Britain, Brendan O'Neill on Spiked

Anonymity for the accused, Ally Fogg

Prosecution by cliche, the Justice Gap

Anonymity for rape accused, Mark George 

The case for anonymity for men and boys, COWRA

The truth about rape statistics, Angry Harry

#ibelieveher hashtag on Twitter


The prevalence of such crimes was therefore unknown. Few came forward to complain, fewer went through with the court case, even fewer saw their attackers convicted and fewer still saw them sent to jail for their crime. Judges were as  likely as defence barristers to cast aspersions on the victim's character, morals or behaviour.

Over the years there were half-hearted attempts to improve the situation, but nothing concrete was done until the 70s. In 1976 the law was changed to allow lifelong anonymity for women  from the moment they made a rape allegation - unless they chose to reveal their identity themselves, as the victim of the Ealing Vicarage rape in 1986 did.

The rule was introduced in recognition of the difficulty in persuading women to speak up and of the prolonged humiliation that may follow a trial. As the committee reviewing the law in 1975 said:

"While fully appreciating that rape complaints may be unfounded, indeed that the complainant may be malicious or a false witness, we think that the greater public interest lies in not having publicity for the complainant. Nor is it generally the case that the humiliation is anything like as severe in other criminal trials: a reprehensible feature of trials of rape…is that the complainant's prior sexual history…may be brought out in the trial in a way which is rarely so in other criminal trials."

The woman is named in court, but everyone - the media, social websites, individuals - is  forbidden to publish anything that may lead to her identification. This rule was later reinforced to prevent readers 'joining the dots' by taking different facts from different newspapers to work out who the complainant was.

Say a woman is raped by her brother

One paper might feel that the relationship makes it a better story, especially if most of its readers won't know the man involved, and therefore say that they are siblings without naming either.

Another might feel that it is necessary in the interests of justice to name the accused - and so refrain from mentioning the family link.

While neither paper believes it has done anything wrong,  the two reports taken together would lead to the identification of the woman and therefore break the law.

This protection did little, however, to raise the conviction rate and it has taken a long time to reach even its present low level. As it happens, Britain has one of the highest conviction rates in Europe - with 2,333 of 3,692 rape trials (63%) ending in a guilty verdict last year, according to a report from the DPP in April.

But this is a tiny proportion of the 60,000-90,000 rapes that are believed to take place each year. Fewer than 16,000 women report attacks to the police, a quarter of the culprits are never identified and even those who are apprehended are most unlikely to end up in court.

Many other statistics were being paraded around yesterday, including a graph on false allegations which actually came from Washington, but even though the numbers differed, they all told basically the same story. 


UK: 78000 estimated rapes each year.16041 reported.13168 not prosecuted.2873 prosecuted.1153 convicted. #ibelieveher http://t.co/WPfxXRpigP
— Laura Del Rey (@isawfireworks) September 11, 2013

The 1976 Act also gave defendants in rape cases anonymity in the interests of equality and to protect innocent men from lasting stigma. This provision was repealed in 1988 after the Criminal Law Revision Committee concluded that there was no reason to differentiate between someone accused of rape and those accused of any other crime - was there more stigma attached to having been accused of rape than of murder? The committee rejected the notion of equality between the parties as superficial.

There have been a couple of attempts since then to reinstate anonymity for men charged with rape, most particularly to protect teachers and others responsible for children from malicious accusations, but these have come to nought.

This is partly because the number of false rape claims is so low, but also because by identifying a man in custody other victims may come forward, as happened with the taxi driver John Worboys, the sports commentator Stuart Hall and - too late for justice - Jimmy Savile.


Today the argument is being rehearsed on the internet, with some men pointing to Le Vell's acquittal as an unanswerable case  for equal protection, while radical feminists point to the rarity of false complaints to explain their concern over the Le Vell verdict.

At the same time there is a third group complaining that the case was brought only because of a 'celebrity witch-hunt' that has led to a string of arrests since the Savile revelations and left anyone in the public eye vulnerable to random accusations.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens in a free society: we have the right to argue loudly and fearlessly regardless of whether we know all, some or none of the facts.

And when a jury clears a man because it doesn't believe the young woman who says he raped her?

That is justice.
comments powered by Disqus


Quick links

Picture
Main sections:
The industry
Press freedom
Press regulation
The schedule
Phone hacking
News judgment
Regionals
Picture
About SubScribe
Send an email
Blogs:
Pictures and spreads
Editor's blog
Press Box
Style Counsel
You have to laugh
OpEd
Front page reviews
Picture
The old blog