Defendant Anonymity

Debate between Louise Mensch and Crispin Blunt

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I understand that that is one of the counter-arguments, but in the end it comes down to a matter of judgment and balance among a number of competing arguments. I am quite happy to concede that the argument that the hon. Lady has set out has some weight, but other arguments have to be weighed in the balance too. Let me therefore put those arguments before the House.

To turn to our proposals, we have now had the opportunity to consider both the arguments and the background in further detail. The last time the subject was debated at any length in Parliament was during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Reference to those debates is highly instructive, and I would like, if I may, to dwell for a while on that subject. Anonymity for defendants was first raised in another place not by a Government or Opposition Member, but by a Cross Bencher, Lord Ackner, the late former Law Lord, who had tabled an amendment to the Bill. Lord Ackner’s view was as follows:

“For 12 years this anonymity”—

that is, defendant anonymity—

“was enjoyed. I have heard nothing to suggest that during those 12 years there were occasions when it worked to the disadvantage of justice. I have not limited my request to pre-trial because pre-trial is only part of the issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1095.]

Their lordships narrowly accepted Lord Ackner’s amendment, so that when the Bill passed to this House it contained provision for defendant anonymity. The then Government decided to resist that in its entirety. In Committee, the Opposition tabled alternative, probing amendments that would have granted anonymity either all the way to conviction or, as the case may be, up to the point of charge. Only the latter amendment was pressed to a Division. A similar Opposition amendment was tabled on Report and was also pressed to a Division. Interestingly, the Government of the day indicated that they accepted the desirability of pre-charge anonymity in principle, but preferred a non-legislative solution. Some scepticism was expressed by a number of speakers in both Houses about whether the non-legislative approach was realistic. However, there was also some support for the suggestion that a non-legislative solution would be ideal.

When the Bill returned to the other place for consideration of this House’s amendments, Lord Ackner moved an amendment similar to his earlier one, but on that occasion it was defeated. However, the coalition partners joined together to support a narrower amendment, tabled by Lord Thomas of Gresford, that would have provided statutory anonymity at the pre-charge stage. That amendment was duly passed. When the Bill returned once again to this House, the then Government maintained their previous position and the Lords amendment was again deleted from the Bill. The matter was once again pressed to a vote. That was followed by yet another round of debate in the other place. Ultimately, no further Opposition amendments were pressed, for fear that the whole Bill would fall as a result.

In the latter stages of the Bill, Ministers indicated that discussions had been held with the Association of Chief Police Officers and with the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission. As a result of the latter discussions, the press was looking at its code of conduct, to see how it could be strengthened to ensure that those suspected of offences—but not yet charged with them—were not named in the media. The burning question prompted by this saga is: what happened next? The answer is that the Press Complaints Commission issued a note in 2004 that specifically addressed the reporting of people accused of crime by reference to the relevant sections of the editors’ code of conduct.

It appears to be widely assumed that there is a self-regulation scheme in place that clearly prohibits the reporting of anybody accused of a crime but not yet charged with it. On close examination, however, the 2004 interpretative note does not provide complete reassurance. Nowhere does it contain an outright general prohibition on the reporting of pre-charge allegations. In fact, in the main, no mention is made of the distinction between pre and post-charge reporting at all. For that reason, anybody affronted—for example, by the reporting of an allegation that was not followed by charge—and who wanted to complain to the PCC about the matter might well find that they had no grounds to do so under the interpretative note or code.

A further point, which soon became apparent from the exhaustive examination of the issue undertaken in this House and another place during the passage of the 2003 Act, is that both the then Government and the then Opposition parties settled on a position of agreement—in principle at least—to non-reporting up to the point of charge and normal reporting procedures thereafter.

Much has been made in the past of the importance of open justice and the free reporting of criminal trials as key elements of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. We support that view. There is, however, another important reason of principle for distinguishing between the reporting of trials and the reporting of allegations before the point of charge. In the case of the latter, we are dealing with allegations that have not been subject to a full range of investigation.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to set out where the Government are on this issue, and then I shall be happy to take further interventions.

When there is an allegation before the point of charge, there may have been some degree of investigation into the allegation, but there will have been no formal assertion on the part of the state that anybody has a case to answer. Those points provide grounds to inhibit reporting that are not present at the trial stage. Therefore, having carefully reviewed the extensive background, having taken account of the fact that nobody should be appearing in a criminal trial unless the prosecuting authorities have assessed all the available evidence including any exculpatory unused material, and prosecutors having applied the other provisions of the code for Crown prosecutors and decided to bring criminal charges, the Government are minded to strengthen anonymity up to the point of charge. This is consistent with the findings of the Home Affairs Select Committee—on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister served—in 2003, and also with the reply that he gave to the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s questions last month.