How Should we Approach Sex Offences?

Last week some rather interesting remarks were made by a barrister. Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that she thought the age of consent should be lowered to 13 to end the ‘persecution of old men’.

She also called for an end to the anonymity granted to complainants in sex cases and for a statute of limitations to prevent prosecutions after a substantial period of time has passed.

The NSPCC said the views were ‘outdated and ill-informed’. Hardwicke Chambers, from which Ms Hewson practises, released a statement dissociating itself from the comments. It said it was ‘shocked’ by the views expressed.

As expected, the views have been criticised widely by the public.

Now I certainly do not agree with the views of Ms Hewson. Having the age of consent set at 16 protects young and vulnerable individuals. And prosecutions should be possible however old an offence is, so long as a fair trial is possible.

However, Ms Hewson’s comments do at least focus attention on an area which needs to be addressed. The media coverage of the recent arrests of a number of high profile individuals will doubtlessly adversely and irreparably affect those individuals’ reputations, even if the investigations against them conclude without further action.

Is it right that individuals suffer the stigma attached to sexual offences when there is insufficient evidence against them to charge them, let alone convict them? In my view, it is not. It seems to me that, presently, society has somewhat abandoned the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There appears to be a perception that anyone linked with sexual offences is guilty and deserving of punishment. That view is not right in any progressive democratic society. An individual is innocent and should be free to conduct unimpeded their own business until the State can prove otherwise. Nevertheless, it is a view that society appears to have adopted. Accordingly the question arises of how we protect innocent individuals from the stigma attached to being accused of a sex offence.

The simple way would be to grant anonymity to individuals accused of sex crimes in the same way that complainants are granted anonymity. Under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 complainants are granted lifelong anonymity, even if their allegations do not lead to the conviction of another. I would not propose lifelong anonymity for suspects. But surely suspects should be granted anonymity at least until they are charged. In that way the reputations of suspects who are simply investigated are not marred by media attention. Arguably, anonymity should be granted until an individual is proven to be guilty and is convicted. Suspects were previously granted anonymity in the Sexual Offences Act 1976, but this was reversed in 1988.

The only conceivable concern about such a scheme is that it could prevent other alleged victims coming forward to report crimes also allegedly committed by the suspect. The Jimmy Savile case is a good example. Many victims only came forward once he had been publicly linked to sex crimes. Anonymity might have prevented this. However, in my view it would be preferable to protect innocent individuals until they are convicted and direct attention at encouraging the reporting of sex crimes. If victims felt confident to report crimes immediately the above concern about granting anonymity to suspects would not exist.

Ms Hewson’s comments might well have been extreme, but they at least focus attention on a subject that desperately needs attention.

What are your thoughts? Should we grant anonymity to suspects?