Anonymity in UK Sexual Offences Law

Introduction

The subject matter of anonymity in sexual offences is tricky and controversial. Being a country with a principle of open justice system, the question of granting anonymity does not arise in any cases whatsoever. The public at large shall have access to the details of a case that has been adjudicated by any court of the United Kingdom herein. Thus, keeping the spirit of ‘open justice’ in mind, it can be said that irrespective of the nature of allegation and the crimes committed, no grant of anonymity shall be allowed to complainant or defendant of any case. However, according to Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992 provides a very important exception to the abovementioned anonymity. Under this statue of law, the victim who has been subjected to any sexual offence as has been enshrined under section 2 of the abovementioned Act herein, shall be granted anonymity for lifetime unless it has been expressly waived off by the victim or the complainant herein under section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992. The provision of anonymity has been provided the Complainant under this Act to protect the victims of any sexual offence from any social stigma or biased behavior and also it gives a protective shield to the victim in safeguarding her wellbeing as well. Thus, unless and until it has been expressly waived off by the complainant and the judge adjudicating the case herein deems fit so for the purpose of public at large or producing witnesses, the complainant of any sexual offences under Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992, shall be granted default anonymity herein. Although, the current law of the UK does not speak of anonymity of any other form, the fifth Home Affairs report on the subject of ‘sexual offence anonymity’ has stirred controversy. According to the abovementioned report, it has been suggested that along with the complainant, the defendant who has been allegedly accused of committing any sexual offence that is pending to be proved by the charge sheet, shall be granted anonymity on the ground that the “stigma that is attached to being accused of a sexual offence can be devastating for the defendant.” According the said report, the defendant’s reputation has been put in the same bar as of the complainant and the chances of false rape cases have been taken into account. Also, the question of equality has been put forward by the abovementioned report herein. Thus, in accordance with the abovementioned the main issue of this research project has been deducted herein – “whether the privilege of holding anonymity should be granted to the defendant of a sexual offence herein and whether it protects the true definition of equality as per the Common Law of the land.” We shall explore the scope of anonymity to defendant with respect to Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992, the case of Dpp v. Morgan, and other criminal justice and we shall explore “whether the conclusion of the Fifth Report of Home affairs should be implemented as a codified criminal provision.” With the help of this instant research project, we shall critically analysis the main issue herein with respect of different case law, reports of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and several provisions on the subject matter of criminal justice and ratify whether the conclusion of the abovementioned report is justified or not.

CHAPTER – I

THE HISTORY OF ANONIMITY DEBATE

The Concept of Anonymity – A Historical Perspective

The law and order of United Kingdom has not faced with the conclusion achieved by the fifth report of home affair arbitrarily. The controversy on the subject matter of ‘defendant anonymity’ has been in the field of law a decade ago and the concept of holding defendant anonymity became a valid legal provision under the Sexual Offences Act of 1976 herein. The concept of extending anonymity to the defendants who were accused in rape cases took a strong place under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976 where, the subject of anonymity was extended to other sexual offences as well. Back then, the anonymity of defendant was proposed and implemented to safeguard defendants from dire accusations such as child sexual abuse or child rape. Also, the defendant anonymity was established with the old notion of protecting the image of high profile defendants. Further, it was stated in favor of the legal provision of defendant anonymity, it was reported that in some cases where an abuse has been taken within a family, the defendant anonymity was necessary in order to protect the identity of the victim herein. However, after running for a decade with defendant anonymity, the parliament repealed the section in the year of 1988 after a report was published by Criminal Law Revision Committee in the year of 1984. Since then, only the complainant was granted and permitted having anonymity in any sexual offence case. While the debate on the subject matter of anonymity has still came into surface many times but it did not take shape a legal provision or reinstate the old provision of the Act of 1976 herein.

The Helibron Committee and Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976

In order to discuss the historical perspective of defendant anonymity in sexual offences, the reports of the Helibron Report is of utmost important. It was the first report that held the decision of “granting anonymity to rape victims herein. The report extensively followed the case of DPP v. Morgan in the year of 1975, on the basis of which the report was drafted. The Case of Morgan is the start of a bad precedent where it was held that as long as the defendant had an honest belief that the complainant was consenting, it shall not be considered as a rape. The public outrage followed by the judgment of the case was the primary reason behind the whole concept of defendant anonymity herein. However, under this report, it was strictly stated that no such anonymity should be granted to the defendant herein”. Thus, from the perspective of the Helibron Report, it can be seen that the damage that had been done in the Morgan case herein, was mitigated by a slim margin through the abovementioned report which was published in the year of 1975. However, from the judgment passed in the case of Morgan, it was easy to assume that the judicial system of UK does not have a clear concept of consent and the fate of rape cases were given in the hands of statement provided by the defendant herein where he only has to prove that he had honest intention. While the Helibron Report of 1975 was not ignored altogether but the parliament of the State ratified the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976 to a different degree herein. In the year of 1976, the parliament amended the abovementioned statue of law and added the anonymity of rape victims as was suggested by the Helibron Report but also added defendant anonymity simultaneously. The then government’s prejudiced mind restricted several aspects to the rape victims’ rights through the amendment of the abovementioned Act and continued the legacy of the Morgan case herein.

Criminal Law Revision Committee Report, 1984

The legal provision of defendant anonymity held the ground for more than 12 years before the Criminal Law Revision Committee Report. In the year of 1984, the fifteenth report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee was published where the legal provision of defendant anonymity was severely criticized. Under this report, it was held that the defendant who has been accused for rape or any other sexual offence should not hold a special position to retain anonymity and there exist no such ground to maintain equality between the complainant and defendant on the subject of anonymity. According to this report, while the anonymity of complainant encourages more women to take step against sexual offence and it gives them certain liberty during the process of cross-examination, the anonymity of defendant does not do any such good and the amendment therein made is unnecessary in nature and it can be said that it was a “concessionary amendment” by the parliament of the country. Also, it was decided by the Committee that defendant of a rape case or any sexual offence shall be put on the same ground as of any other defendants who have been accused of crimes of the same degree. No particular privilege shall be given to the defendants of sexual offence cases herein.

The Criminal Justice Act, 1988

Following the above mentioned report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee herein, changes were made in the year of 1988 regarding the subject matter of defendant anonymity. Section 158 herein subsequently repealed section 6 of the abovementioned Act of 1976 and several debates in favor of defendant anonymity was rejected and it was held that the purpose of defendant anonymity is unnecessary and granting such protection to the defendants of such gruesome allegation only encourages the criminals herein. Also, it was held that the defendant anonymity concept only provides for an extra layer of protection for the defendant where half of the rape cases and sexual offences of the country went unreported due to lack of encouragement amongst the women. While 1988 seemed like a promising year to make such amendments in order to protect the women, the case of Austen Donnellan proved to be otherwise. Even after the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988 and the reports of the Criminal Law Revision Committee has as has been mentioned herein, the case of Austen Donnellan essentially followed the judgment held in the Morgan case herein and the concept of consent was twisted to fit the wrongdoers herein. The abovementioned situation did not go better until the enactment of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in the year of 1994 where the abovementioned prejudice or assumption held in the Morgan case was rejected and it was said that the judge must presume the case of rape or any other sexual offence from the neutral ground herein.

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992

In the post Criminal Justice Act, 1988and after an elaborate discussion made by the Criminal Law Revision Report of 1984 and the Helibron Committee which was introduced before 1976, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992 was finally amended and anonymity granted to the victim of rape or any other sexual offences which fall under section 2 of the same Act of 1992 herein. The defendant anonymity concept took a backseat with the enactment of this Act of 1992. Although, the concept of consent in rape and other sexual offence crimes did not change as it was seen from the case of Austen Donnellan, which essentially followed the spirit and concept of the Morgan case herein, the victim anonymity without the defendant anonymity certainly granted with the complainant with a upper hand in cases with sexual charges and the Act of 1992, encouraged women to come forward before the court herein as well.

The amendment proposal of Liberal Democrat in the year of 1998

However, the problem of defendant anonymity did not take a leave so soon. In the year of 1998, the liberal democrats of the country moved and suggested an amendment to include the concept of defendant anonymity in rape cases which was rejected by the then judicial system herein. Also, the parliament herein proposed to reinstate all the provisions established in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976 which was again rejected and acknowledged to be of an attempt to secure the position of defendants in rape cases over the complainant and the constant suggestions which has been put forward in favour of the defendant, not only encouraged the criminals to commit the crime but also discouraged the women of the country to keep mum about their sexual harassment cases. Lord Goodhart therefore rejected and dismissed such proposal of amendment in the year of 1998 twice. Even though the proposal was rejected, several arguments were made in favor of defendant anonymity over the courts of time from 1999 to 2002 and finally the fifth report of the Home Affairs Committee was put forward on 2003 which again proposed the defendant anonymity, followed by the Sexual Offence Bill, 2003.While the Sexual Offence Bill, 2003 and other previous law statues on criminalizing sexual offence also provided some valuable insight on providing the complainant anonymity and other several privileges to the victims herein with the motive to encourage women to come forward and report rape, molestation or other forms of sexual offence, it necessarily provided or tried to provide the accused or the defendant with some kind of security as well.

CHAPTER – II

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS FIFTH REPORT, JUNE 24TH 2003

The fifth report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, presented in the year of 2003 brought back the decades’ long debate over to the same point here – the anonymity granted to the defendant in a rape case of any sexual offence herein. The fifth report of 2003 made several arguments in favour of the anonymity and against it and here we shall discuss the contents of the abovementioned report herein and whether the conclusion is justified or not. The abovementioned report of the select committee on Home Affairs essentially reflected the comments made by Lord Ackner in favor of the anonymity granted to the defendant citing the particular fact that defendant’s anonymity in a rape case never compromised with the justice and it has never posed as a hindrance in order to punish the defendant as well. Thus, the above referred fifth report herein essentially reflected on the propositions passed by the liberal democrat herein and unlike the ancient view, modern arguments in favor of defendant anonymity was made by the Select Committee herein.

An in-depth study of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Fifth Report

According to the para 64 of the abovementioned report herein, the background of such report has been produced which has extensively used the reference of the cases which dig into past abuse in the children’s home herein. Referring to the Fourth Report of the Select Committee which was presented in the year of 2001-02, special attentions have been secured to the events of harassment which had to be endured by the defendants who dealt with the allegations of past sexual abuses herein. Thus, according to the report herein, in such cases false cases were reported in order to harass defendant and the need of anonymity was of utmost importance. After discussing the background of such proposal, the report presents the importance and the evolution of complainant’s anonymity in cases of rape or any other sexual offences and historical references of such anonymity of complainant have been discussed in depth from para 65 to 67. However, the abovementioned discussion under the heading of “anonymity to the complainant” was not only restricted to the complainant but it sufficiently shed light on the occurrence of providing the defendant with a privileged of anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976. Keeping the critical comments on such concept and provision in track, the report also suggested defendant anonymity received lots of supports as well.

The observations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Fifth Report, 2003

While from the abovementioned discussion, it might seem that the Fifth report on Home Affairs has only justified the defendant’s anonymity, it has provided a critical comment on both sides of the arguments herein. One of the advantages of this report is that it essentially attends and accepts the anonymity granted to the complainant of any rape or sexual offences and the importance of it. It essentially mentions the merits of the Helibron Committee herein and discusses how anonymity granted to the victim shall protect the victim from discussing any detailed events of the sexual offence during the time of cross examination and how the law in the later times and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992 has provided the complainant with absolute stand for anonymity herein. Another important advantage of the report herein is that it essentially admits the several arguments against the concept of defendant anonymity which identified that the defendant anonymity can create an obstacle before police to conduct proper investigation of rape or any other sexual offences. Also, by providing defendant anonymity, UK shall contradict its principle of open justice and open court in perusal of the public at large. According to the observations made in favor for the defendant anonymity udner this report, it has been mentioned that in order to protect the defendant from the public outrage, the defendant anonymity should be granted and it has proposed the grant of defendant anonymity till the pre-charge period i.e. till the charge sheet against the defendant has been framed herein or in the circumstances of post-charge as well if the authority deem fit. In support to such argument, the case of Matthew Kelly was used as a reference. However, the report states the possibility of false accusation but no such proof in support of such false case or false accusation has been provided in the report herein. Based on such arguments in favor of the defendant anonymity which puts forward nothing but protecting the reputation and dignity of the defendant herein and the age old argument of providing equal treatment to the defendant during the course of trial as rape charge or any simultaneous sexual offence charge is not like any other charges, the report herein concludes with the decision that due to the particular gravity and genre of allegation the sexual offence case herein, the anonymity should be granted to complainant and defendant herein.

Critical Evaluation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Fifth Report, 2003

After discussing the contents, advantages and disadvantages of the fifth report of the select committee on Home Affairs, 2003, we shall critically evaluate and discuss the need of defendant anonymity and whether the conclusion drawn at the end of the abovementioned report stand right and justified in the eyes of laws herein. We shall further discuss whether the two points put forward in favor of the defendant anonymity is essential enough in the light of the recent case developments herein. In reference to the Chapter – I of this research project, where we have extensively discussed the concept of defendant anonymity in the legal provisions of the United Kingdom, we can critically conclude that the concept is not new and it has time and again referred by several reports and the governments since it was repealed by the Crime and Disorder Bill of 1988 herein. After the subject matter of defendant anonymity was shown as unnecessary under the Criminal Law Revision Report, 1984, the liberal democrat of the country has brought the topic up with every other passing of the bill which includes the Crime and Disorder Bill, 1988 and Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, 1999. Even on the year of 2003, Lord Ackner proposed an amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill, 2003 regarding retaining the defendant anonymity herein. Thus, if we can critically compare the historical avenue of defendant anonymity, it can be seen that since the repeal of Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1976 in the year of 1988 and an amendment to that effect in the year of 1992, the parliament and many jurists have taken the side of defendant anonymity and pledged for the reinstatement of the old provision herein. Henceforth, the question comes, why the United Kingdom is so hell bent in reinstating the provision of defendant anonymity? The answer to this question shall be discussed further in the following points. 2. As it has been elaborately noted under the journal published by Temkin, “it can be rightly observed that there exists no other criminal offence which is related to the intricacies of social attributes on such huge scale.” Also, it has been pointed out by Brownmiller, by default we live in a patriarchic society where the mindset of the men and their sexual desires do not depend on the consent of the women herein. Rape and other sexual offences in our society is just not a mere criminal offence but they still hold the definition of the male power and the “power struggle between two genders”. If we critically evaluate the observations made under the Select Committee report herein, it can be seen that power struggle remains under para 72 where the report has expressly suggested that “there is no strong case in favor of extending defendant anonymity.” Further, it has been expressly mentioned and noted under the report that if anonymity is granted to the defendant, the situation makes it harder for the police to investigate the matter and it blocks the other victims, if any, of the same defendant to come forward and testify in the particular case. Thus, the report explicitly suggested that granting defendant anonymity genuinely obstructs investigation and the path to justice and thus, the argument of equality to the complainant’s anonymity does not hold valid. However, despite such explicit remarks, the report concludes on granting defendant anonymity which is arbitrary and can be marked as reinstating the power struggle mentioned earlier and it brings us back to the first question mentioned under point no. 1. 3. In reference to a detailed journal published by Susas Edwards, it can be concluded and measured that before 1975, women struggled with the issue of creditability in proving a case of rape and “rape complainants needed to go through a public scrutiny and corroboration requirement before proceeding with prosecuting the defendant.” Thus, the unlike any other criminal offences, the women had to go through a creditability doubt before a constructive case of rape could be instituted before the court of law. Following the same reason of creditability, the defendant anonymity was proposed throughout the ‘anonymity timeline’ as has been discussed under chapter – I and the conclusion of the Select Committee Report only attest to the age old prejudiced concept against women herein. It cannot be called equal treatment if one party is already suffering a disadvantage due to patriarchal mindset. The defendant anonymity subtly asks of women to prove creditability once again because apparently “rape is a myth”. 4. The United Kingdom has a pattern of adjudicating criminal offence relating to bigamy, adultery and other felonies with one common question – “whether the defendant had an honest belief to negate the apparent mens rea”. Prior to the case of Morgan, there was no established case in order to prove the concept of mens rea in rape cases. Due to lack of established cases and legal provisions related to rape or any other sexual offence, the case of Morgan was put under the same bar of R v. Tolson and R v. Chisam. Thus, the Helibronn Report of 1976 was a surprise to the concept of sexual offence and consent to the country and other reports that followed. However, with the change of time, the status of women has changed and so has the concept of consent in sexual offences. A concept, which seemed valid on a background of underdeveloped rape laws, does not stand valid especially when United Kingdom signed the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) herein.

Thus, in accordance to the abovementioned discussed and critical evaluation of the Select Committee, it can be said that the report was not conclusive enough. Defendant anonymity does not attract the issue of equality as the privilege of anonymity was granted to the complainant as a safeguard against certain societal discrimination and obstacles that had put women at a place of disadvantage to prosecute a rapist. Also, as it has been discussed above, the grant of defendant anonymity necessarily obstruct the path of justice and creates a hindrance in the investigation process as well. The reference that has been used in the abovementioned report was necessarily attached to a celebrity’s public life (the case of Matthew Kelly), which shall not be used in the case of general people. Further, if we critically evaluate the particular comment that “5% to 7% people accused of child abuse commits suicide”, we can emphasis on the word of child abuse which includes harming, neglecting or ill-treating a child and it shall not always be sexual in nature. Thus the reference of such research is again irrelevant to the concept of defendant anonymity as in view of such statement; defendant shall need to be granted anonymity in every other criminal offence as well. Thus, in conclusion to the abovementioned discussion and critical evaluation, it can be said that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, fifth report, 2003 proposes an unnecessary implication of defendant anonymity which only shows the stigma attached to sexual offence in society and the prejudiced take of the abovementioned Committee on women herein and the defendant should not have the same right of anonymity as complainant until charge and/or conviction herein.

CHAPTER – III

RAPE LAW REFORMS IN UNITED KINGDOM

As a developed country, United Kingdom struggles on the subject of law and as per the recent proposal put forward by the Conservative and liberal coalition government in 2010, it was again suggested to reinstate the provision of defendant anonymity within the rape laws of the country. As per the Home Office Review herein, it was pointed out that as per the report herein, 8% to 10% of the instituted rape cases proved to be false and thus the government put forward a proposition regarding the innocent victims who fall prey under the false rape accusations. Even though it was argued that the percentage of such cases are extremely low and as per the statement of one prosecutor herein who reported that in his career of 15 years, he only dealt with the issue of false rape case once, the issue did not resolve and proposals were further made with an aim to reconstruct the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992. Thus, from the abovementioned point of view, it can be said that UK still needs to go a long way in order to catch up with the several concepts of sexual offences in UK. Herein, we shall discuss what reforms in rape law should be proposed in order to apprehend the better use of UK’s rape or sexual offences legal provisions herein.

The Problems in the current rape law

While admittedly United Kingdom has several law provisions and statues on the subject of governing rape and other forms of sexual assaults herein, this country also deals with certain conceptual problems which have not been dealt with since the year of 1975. The Sexual Offence Act, 2003 currently deals with rape, however under section 72(2) (f) of the Act of 2003 expressly ignores consent given in the state of intoxication where the complainant was intoxicated on her own. Thus, the current problems in rape and other sexual assaults can be attributed as follows:

The concept of consent which has been attached to the rape law of the country is severely flawed. Under the old law of rape and sexual assault and the following Morgan precedent, it could be said that consent shall be considered as a valid consent if the defendant believed it to be consent and no reasonable ground was necessary. Thus, under the old rape law, it was proven that the concept of consent is not in the hands of the complainant but the defendant herein. Following the concept herein, in the case of R v.Makanjoula, it was held that the creditability of the complainant cannot be accepted by the jury. Even in the current Sexual Offences Act, 2003, the concept of non-consent is not accepted if the consent is given under a state of intoxication where the complainant has taken the intoxicated drugs herself. Another problem of the rape law of UK is the creditability issue. Even after years of reforms and researches, the government still proposes to ensure defendant anonymity in cases of sexual assaults which essentially questions to the creditability of women in cases of rape herein. Although, defendant anonymity has not been reinstated under the rape law of the country but with frequent proposal to make such amendment states it is only a matter of time that defendant anonymity would be made a legal provision again as it has been suggested by the Select Committee Report of 2003 as well.

Rape Law Reforms with respect to defendant anonymity – necessary steps to be taken for a better Rape Law in UK

One of the major issues with the Rape Law Reform of United Kingdom is the point of focus of the government. Till the year of 2010, the government once and again stressed the point of defendant anonymity in the rape law more than the victim’s position herein. As it has been seen from the abovementioned critical evaluation of the Select Committee report, it can be said that defendant anonymity is irrelevant to today’s rape law of the country where the jurists and jurors struggle with understanding a concise concept of valid consent herein. In the case of R v. R, it was held that forced sex with wife where the wife did not consent shall not come under unlawful intercourse. Although the situation has changed drastically over the years with the help of Sexual Offences Act, 2003, UK still struggles with validating a strong concept of consent as it can be seen from the case of R v. Hysa, where the complainant could not remember providing consent as she was intoxicated with marijuana but the court ruled in favor of the accused as no clear case was established that consent was not given. Thus, in a country where the recent rape and sexual assault law confides in the concept that “consent is implied unless it has been expressly said so” and “if the complainant is not forced with the intoxication, the non-consent shall not be valid to establish a case of sexual assault”, it is outrageous to hold ground to implement defendant anonymity over everything else. According to the recent amendment in the year of 2004 of the Sexual Offences Act, the term of ‘reasonable ground to believe consent was given’ was added and it is the burden of the defendant to prove whether reasonable ground was there to make the defendant believe that the complainant had given consent herein. Also, with great difficulty, marital rape was incriminated under the Act of 2004 herein as well.

Steps to be taken for better Rape and Sexual Assault Law in UK

As it has been already discussed in the first chapter herein, the sexual assault and rape law lacks the basic two ingredients of a criminal charge – mens rea and actus rea. Till the year of 1988, the concept of actus rea defined rape as “unlawful intercourse”. With the help Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994, the word unlawful was eliminated from the sexual assault law which also included marital rape as valid herein. Although the introduction of such reform was controversial within the legal barriers, with the help of several other feminist campaigns, the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 provided with a clear definition of rape as “penile penetration of vagina, anus or mouth.” With respect to the concept of mens rea, the burden of proving guilty mind was given in the hands of the complainant for a long time. Since 1976, it was decided that if the defendant had the mistaken belief that the woman is consenting, it shall not be regarded as mens rea. Thus, despite the presence of actus rea, rapists under the UK law could get away on the concept of the mens rea herein. As it has termed by Jennifer Temkin, this particular concept was held as the “rapist charter” herein. However, after with the Criminal Law Revision report in the year of 1984 and with the introduction of Sexual Offences Act, 2003, the concept of mistaken belief was discarded along with defendant anonymity which essentially safeguarded the concept of mistaken belief held in the case of Morgan herein. And finally with the amendment to the Sexual Offences Act, 2004, a clear and concise amendment was passed with particular focus on the subject matter of consent and it was set that the burden of proving whether there was a reasonable ground to believe that the complainant had provided consent was on the defendant herein and no defendant anonymity shall be granted to the defendant under this reformed Act of 2004 herein.

CHAPTER – IV

CONCLUSION

As it has been stated earlier that in the year of 2010, the liberal-conservative coalition government has proposed the concept of defendant anonymity in cases of rape and other sexual assaults on the basis of the Select Committee Review of 2003 which has been critically evaluated on the basis of its observations under chapter – II. According to the recent law of the country, only the complainant is entitled of anonymity and not the defendant. The anonymity provision struck the controversy of open court and justice of UK. As it has been critically discussed before, complainant’s anonymity and defendant’s anonymity is not the same thing and defendant anonymity cannot be postulated from the view point of establishing equality between the complainant and defendant. Defendant anonymity essentially originates from the “rape myths” i.e. women are likely to lie about getting raped and the whole concept of prosecuting a man in a male dominated society is to defame him. Thus, after critically evaluating the research project and the recent rape law reforms and the possible struggles in establishing the reforms, it is clear that defendant anonymity is a prejudiced and biased decision that speaks of the male domination in the society and the remaining of patriarchy herein. The patriarchy of the society is more inclined at questioning the creditability of women during a rape trial than to question the accused man on the stand as apparently men cannot do any wrong or rather the concept of rape was not incriminated for a long time as women were often seen as the property of the men of the society.

Also, the concept of defendant anonymity essentially suppresses fair trial under and hinders the ways of investigation by the police which has been observed by the Select Committee Report of 2003 herein. Further, according to the article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, defendant anonymity does not contradicts the equality provision between the complainant and the defendant herein as in favor of the complainant anonymity, there exist several societal factors which contribute to the complainant’s part which can severely affect the rape trial. But in the case of defendant anonymity there exist no such provisions except the provision of public outrage and defaming the defendant in the case he proves to be innocent. While it is true that an accusation of sexual assault or rape attracts lots of social stigma but so does other allegation of criminal offences. So, to hold the ground of defendant anonymity, it must be applicable to other criminal offences as well and not just in the case of sexual assault herein. Hence, in concluding this instant research project, it can be said that the decision held by the Select Committee on Home affairs report, the application and new implementation of the age old concept of defendant anonymity is baseless and irrelevant with respect to today’s rape and sexual assault law of UK as the power struggle between genders is real and the male gender holds a higher authority in the patriarchal society and it influences the judicial system of the state as well. Thus, where the Complainant and the defendant are not equal in the societal point of view, no such ground of equality can be held in the case of rape trials as well. Defendant anonymity only paves a path to question the women’s creditability in rape trails and nothing more.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Taylor, Laura (2014) The role of human rights in determining whether complainants of a sexual offence and/or defendants charged with an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 should receive anonymity, Durham theses, Durham University

Rumney and Rachel Anne Fenton; “Rape, Defendant Anonymity and Evidence—Based Policy Making.” (2013); The Modern Law Review, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 109–133

Ward. C (1995); “Attitudes Toward Rape: Feminist and Psychological Perspective”; SAGE Publications, London, p.38

Ellison. L, Munro. Vanessa, “Of ‘Normal Sex’ and ‘Real Rape’: Exploring the Use of Socio-Sexual Scripts in (Mock) Jury Deliberation” [2009]; Social and Legal Studies, Vol. 18 pp. 291, 292-293.

Dolly F. Alexander; “Twenty Years of Morgan: A Criticism of the Subjectivist View of Mens Rea and Rape in Great Britain” (1995); Pace International Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 207- 248

Thomas J. Lewis; “Recent Proposals in the Criminal Law of Rape: Significant Reform or Semantic Change?” (1979); Osgoode Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.445-462

Brownmiller. S (1975); ‘Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape’; Penguin Books Ltd, England, p.13

Home Office, The Stern Review: A report by Baroness Vivien Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales (March 2010)

Home Office, Helibron Committee: Report of the Advisory Group on the Law of Rape (CMND, December 1975)

Fifteenth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, Sexual Offences (CMND 9213, April 1984)