Should the names of the victim and accused remain anonymous

[Hacker Khan]

Generally I think people have the right to not be named until charged. But there will be cases where the accused is named so other potential victims come forwards.

 

[garyinderry]

I dont see the need to try and coax these other victims out. when they person is found guilty, there is ample time for the other victims (if there is any) to make themselves known and further convictions to be brought.

 

[SVB]

On a case by case basis, with the judge making the decision.

Not voted

Seems a sensible solution. Everso difficult to legislate a blanket rule in what will only ever unique situations. Would be happy for some principles to be legislated to promote consistency.

My bias would be for non-disclosure but accept there will be cases where this is counter to interest of fair justice for all.

Simon

 

[Foxholer]

There was me thinking that a person was deemed innocent, in the eyes of the law, until proven guilty. Suppose we'd better just rip up the law books and start again.

Dangerous precedent being set here.

In the eyes of the law, certainly!

However, that doesn't stop the press (particularly) or general public from making and announcing their own 'judgements'!

Poll not sufficient for me to partake!

I'm defo for anonymity for victiim, and for the 'accused' until charged and would consider anonymity being retained, at least for certian charges, until at least the Court appearance stage.

 

[Simbo]

Absolutely!!

There's no way that the accused should be dragged through the papers and social media etc etc, while the accuser gets to remain anonymous. As the accuser may just be the bad one!! And if someone throws enough mud some of it is going to stick, even if the accused is cleared by court.