Select a region
Regular readers of my column will be aware of my views against the public naming of defendants before conviction. I have long advocated the desperate need to change the law, so anonymity is granted to those who plead ‘not guilty’ until such time as they are proven guilty and convicted.
After conviction they are ‘fair game’ as part of the consequences of committing crime is the public embarrassment and shame. However, as I have said on very many occasions, the need to protect the identity of those who are suspected of offences has become more pressing as social media has grown and developed.
Now, as soon as a story breaks it is reported in words and pictures on online news sources, commented upon on forums and other social media platforms and shared between people with internet-links and screenshots. The more shocking the story the more gossip and publicity it receives.
I am bewildered why it is taking so long for the Government of Jersey to make any changes to the law when, for my part, it is patently clear that change will have to happen. I think I have previously cited the well-known Cliff Richard debacle as an example of the effects of publicising named people in criminal investigations. If you need more, or if the government needs more, just look to the recent story regarding Eleanor Williams in the UK.
Pictured: "Now, as soon as a story breaks it is reported in words and pictures on online news sources, commented upon on forums and other social media platforms and shared between people with internet-links and screenshots."
Eleanor Williams was a 22-year-old, who accused several men of grooming her and committing numerous rapes upon her. She related stories in which she had been trafficked to Amsterdam as a sex worker, had been threatened to death and had been sold at a slave auction. In and amongst that narrative, she posted pictures of herself on social media with severe facial injuries. All the men accused denied her allegations and were cleared. Why? Because the stories were simply that: a string of fantasy and make-believe.
Williams had invented all her allegations and had inflicted the injuries upon herself with a hammer. However, while the allegations were being investigated, the men accused were treated appallingly by others. People in one town sprayed graffiti on one man’s house, put stickers around the town demanding justice for the ‘atrocities’ committed upon Williams. One man even attempted to take his own life and became sectioned under mental health laws.
The fact that Williams ended up with an eight-and-a-half-year prison sentence is not much of a consolation to the men who suffered from her sinister lies. This case is extreme and is probably rare, but it shows that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is there for a good reason.
Pictured: "Recently, the Jersey media reported that all rape trials which took place in the Royal Court in 2021 and 2022 ended in non-conviction."
Recently, the Jersey media reported that all rape trials which took place in the Royal Court in 2021 and 2022 ended in non-conviction. That means all those defendants were at risk of being named during the judicial process. Sometimes the court orders that the defendants are not named but this is generally to defend the identity of the victim – not the defendant. Why cannot it be observed that when there are two different accounts concerning an allegation either person involved may be the one telling the truth? To consider the defendant must be or is more likely to be telling lies wholly undermines the ‘innocent until guilty’ approach.
Then, on the flip side there is, in my opinion, also a need to at least consider whether some young offenders should be named once convicted. Why should it be that a 16-year-old can join the army and at law is at the age of sexual consent but should not be named when found guilty of offending? Times are changing, and so must the law.
As I have said before and say again, can our government please lead the way and introduce the necessary legislation to implement suitable protections to defendants before the UK? It is always so disheartening to watch Jersey follow like a sheep in things like this instead of leading the way and being admired for its progress.
This opinion piece first appeared in Connect Magazine, which you can read in full below...
