LONDON LETTER:The Conservative-Lib Dem programme for government contains a proposal to protect the identity of those accused of rape
BY DAY, John Worboys lived a quiet life in Rotherhithe, keeping his house and two cars, including his London black cab, immaculate. By night, he was one of the worst serial rapists in British history, believed to have drugged and sexually assaulted up to 100 women, if not more, after he persuaded them to share a glass of champagne with him to celebrate a win on the Lottery as he drove them home in the early hours.
Last year Worboys, who became known in the press as the black cab rapist, was convicted of one count of rape, five sexual assaults, one attempted assault and 12 drugging charges between July 2007 to February 2008 and sentenced to eight years in jail, though the judge ruled that he should not be released then unless it was shown that he was no longer a danger to women.
He had been detained in July 2007 by police for questioning, but released without further action, though the police’s conduct of the investigation was subject to withering criticism subsequently from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Several officers got written warnings about their treatment of witnesses but none was dismissed from the force.
The Worboys case is mentioned frequently by rape victims’ organisations, who are now opposing a coalition programme for government proposal to grant anonymity to men accused of rape since they argue that many of his victims did not come forward to give evidence until they heard that he had been charged with offences against others.
The anonymity proposal was included in the coalition pact, even though it did not feature in the election manifestos of either; but anonymity for the accused has been Liberal Democrat policy since the party’s 2006 conference when delegates sought changes in the wake of a number of cases where a number of male celebrities were arrested in connection with sexual assault allegations but did not subsequently face charges.
Anonymity for complainants was first proposed in 1976 in rape cases on the back of recommendations by the Heilbron Committee the year before, which argued that “public knowledge of the indignity which [the complainant] has suffered in being raped may be extremely distressing and even positively harmful, and the risk of such public knowledge can operate as a severe deterrent to bringing proceeding.
“The balance of argument seems to us to be in favour of anonymity for the complainant other than in quite exceptional circumstances. 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,” said Heilbron.
By the time the legislation emerged from Westminster, however, the same rights had been granted to the accused in such cases, following concessions by the government of the day to backbenchers and following some rumblings from members of the House of Lords.
However, anonymity for defendants was abandoned in 1988 on the back of the Criminal Law Revision Committee report, which argued that it did not make sense to distinguish between such defendants and those facing other charges (eg an acquittal on a charge of homosexual soliciting might be no less damaging than one on a charge of rape).
Labour MPs queued up in the House of Commons last week to criticise the plans when they questioned justice secretary Ken Clarke, with Labour MP Maria Eagle implying that the idea only emerged during the programme for government negotiations because no women were at the table at the time.
Former Labour minister Caroline Flint said Mr Clarke believed the stigma from a false rape accusation was so damaging to men that they needed anonymity: “But [the] evidence shows that the public are far more hostile to paedophiles and murderers, so why, on the evidence, does he choose to extend anonymity to those accused of rape?”
For those campaigning for more action against rapists, the issue is not the protection of men’s reputations but rather the small number who are convicted when they eventually get to court. In 2004, 751 were convicted in 2,689 trials, though the proportions had increased somewhat by 2008, when 922 were convicted in 2,395 trials.
On the other side of the argument, however, stands the case of Warren Blackwell, who served three years in jail for a rape that never occurred until his accuser, Shannon Taylor – whose name emerged only after a member of House of Lords used parliamentary privilege to publicise it – was revealed as a fantasist who had made seven previous such allegations.
Taylor kept changing her name and moving address, so that police forces investigating her claims did not realise that they were dealing with the same woman, though some investigating officers had deep concerns about her reliability.
Now David Cameron is offering a compromise, suggesting that anonymity would only be granted until the point where someone is actually charged, while Mr Clarke has suggested that the issue should be left to a free vote of MPs when it finally comes before the Commons.
