Anonymity for sex offender suspects until charged

Seems like basic common sense to me, given how the BBC and others behave:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48822950

 

I believe as a matter of principle all suspects of any crime should have anonymity until convicted - unless they abscond from bail. 

(I do appreciate in reality that is going to be impossible for high profile crimes)

I disagree about anonymity until conviction, but I think anonymity until charge is fair (or at least goes a good way towards redressing the balance).

What's wrong with anonymity until conviction? Innocent until proven guilty and all that....

The usual argument is that it encourages others to come forward.

The rule should be: anonymity until conviction unless the judge is satisfied that it would be in the public interest for anonymity to be revoked.

The usual argument is that it encourages others to come forward.

 

And it does.  In cases like Worboys (or anyone who's guilty) that's great.  In cases like Sir Cliff (or anyone who's not guilty) less so.  Question is do we value encouraging victims of guilty people more than ruining the reputations of innocent ones.

It's a toughie.

Alan Partridge,

As Stixta said above - "I disagree about anonymity until conviction, but I think anonymity until charge is fair (or at least goes a good way towards redressing the balance)."

The other reason not to have anonymity until conviction is that we don't do secret justice in English Courts, it is a public affair. This keeps a check on the excesses of the state, minimising the chances of the sorts of political prosecutions common to secret systems.

No but we do have double jeopardy. Query if the existence of other similar allegations that weren’t know at the first trial would be enough to order a second. 

As Alan says, either way someone loses. I tend to come down on the side of the status quo (as in music, in life) but that’s just me. 

Double jeapardy was repealed by the Labour government in the UK in 2005...

Yes but only where there is significant new evidence to justify a second trial (iirc, maybe I don’t), hence the query in my post. 

Double jeopardy was (scandalously) abolished by Bliar's lot.

I think you'll find that double jeopardy was instated by Blair's lot, it was the rule against it that was repealed.