Actor Michael Le Vell was acquitted of child rape but his reputation may have been tarnished forever. Jack McKeown explores whether people accused of rape should have their identities protected.
In recent weeks the nation has been gripped by the trial of Michael Le Vell, Coronation Street’s Kevin Webster. Mr Le Vell, who was charged under his real name Michael Turner, had denied five counts of rape, three of indecent assault, two counts of sexual activity with a child and two of causing a child to engage in sexual activity. On Monday a jury of eight women and four men took four hours to reach its unanimous not guilty verdict.
Although he was acquitted of rape, the trail contained several revelations about his life that will have embarrassed the actor. It became apparent Mr Le Vell is an alcoholic who had a series of one-night stands throughout his 25-year marriage. His own defence solicitor described him as a “weak, stupid and drunk man” and a “bad husband”.
Should people accused of rape have their identity protected so their reputation is not trashed if they are acquitted? Or does the low conviction rate for rape warrant naming those accused so that other potential victims may come forward?
Dundee Bar Association’s George Donnelly and Rape Crisis Scotland’s Eileen Maitland put forward their cases for and against anonymity.
Eileen Maitland said: “Rape survivors already face many barriers when considering whether or not to report, and many decide not to.
“With only a very small proportion of those cases reported to the police actually resulting in a conviction (7% was the last available figure from the Crown Office), it is developments that will improve the prospects of survivors receiving justice that we should be considering not something that will worsen them further.
“Granting anonymity to those accused of rape would be a damaging and retrograde step which promises to do exactly that.
“Not guilty verdicts in high-profile cases frequently result in demands for anonymity for men accused of sexual violence but what kind of message does this send out? That there is more doubt surrounding the veracity of a rape accusation than for other criminal charges that women are not to be trusted?
“There is no other crime in which the accused is guaranteed anonymity and no justification for granting it to those accused of rape. Damaging assumptions around the notion of men being falsely accused of rape can be heard everywhere, but the reality is that this happens no more often in the context of rape than it does for any other crime.
“Furthermore, it is key to police intelligence that the identity of the accused be made known, in order that information from a range of complainers can be linked, recorded and, where appropriate, the Moorov doctrine applied.
“In many cases, identification and conviction of a perpetrator is only possible when women become aware of his identity.
“Taxi driver John Worboys was only convicted when his identity became known, and several women assaulted by him were able to identify him and verify the truth with their own experiences.
“Worboys is thought to have attacked more than 50 women over a 13-year period.
“The concealment of Jimmy Savile, on the other hand a serial abuser at whose hands an enormous number of children suffered over a period of five decades served no one but himself.
“His identity was revealed too late for any prospect of justice in the courts.”
George Donnelly is vice-president of the Dundee Bar Association. He said: “Michael Le Vell is a celebrity case but there are dozens of cases affecting non-celebrities who have to go and live in their own communities and are often the subject of vigilantism. Because they have been charged with or stood trial for rape, their names are out there and frequently their addresses have been read out in court and printed in their local newspaper.
“Trials for these offences attract public outcry and an outpouring of hostility. The mere suspicion of being involved in such cases can be enough to trigger retribution. Sometimes this is physical but it doesn’t have to be violence, it can involve social exclusion. People can be shunned by everyone they know or verbally abused. Because their address is known, their property can be damaged.
“All this can happen to people whose guilt has not been established. We have defended people who have been acquitted but have had to move house and give up their employment because their reputation has been destroyed and the community runs them out.
“It doesn’t only extend to the individual accused of the crime either. Their spouse and children often suffer from the allegations made against them.
“We have to start with the presumption of innocence. Everyone charged with an offence is innocent until they plead guilty or a jury of their peers finds them guilty.
“We’re talking about the naming and shaming of people who have not been convicted. If they haven’t been convicted of a crime then they haven’t committed a crime.
“There is no barrier to naming people once they have been convicted of rape. In fact, it should be encouraged. The public has a right to know who convicted rapists are because they’ve done a terrible thing.
“But until they are convicted people accused of rape should be granted the same anonymity as their victims.
“In the eyes of their community they are sullied even if they are found not guilty and are therefore open to retribution.
“There will always be people who think there is no smoke without fire.
“I don’t think the naming of people accused of rape in any way improves the conviction rate.
“Michael Le Vell and his employers now have to deal with the outcome of what was revealed at his trial.”