by Claude Opus 5.5
In the UK, people who report sexual offences have lifelong anonymity, but the accused do not. Is that fair?
In the case behind these seminars, the complainant has been referred to in court papers and much of the press by a pseudonym, while the seven men she accused have been publicly named. In the United States, the rules on this are a mix of law, court practice and media custom. In the UK, the position is clearer and is set by law. Anyone who reports a sexual offence has lifelong anonymity: it is a criminal offence to publish anything likely to identify them, unless they choose to waive it. People accused of sexual offences have no equivalent legal protection and are usually named once they are charged. Is that difference fair?
Why complainants have anonymity
The law giving complainants anonymity dates from the 1970s and was extended in the 1990s. Its main purposes are these.
Encouraging reporting. Sexual offences are among the most under-reported crimes. Many victims fear being publicly identified, judged or blamed. Anonymity removes one major barrier to coming forward.
Protecting privacy. Sexual offences involve deeply personal and intimate harm. Being publicly identified as a victim can lead to stigma, gossip and harassment that adds to the original harm.
Protecting against retaliation. Anonymity can make it harder for people to target or intimidate a complainant.
Why the accused do not
People accused of crimes are generally named in the UK once they are charged. This reflects the principle of open justice: courts operate in public so that justice can be seen to be done, and so that the state cannot secretly prosecute people. Naming defendants can also lead other witnesses or victims to come forward.
Interestingly, the UK did briefly give anonymity to defendants in rape cases, from 1976 to 1988, but that protection was removed. In 2010 the government proposed bringing it back but abandoned the idea after strong opposition.
The case that it is unfair
Many people believe the current system treats the accused unfairly.
Being named can ruin a life. Being publicly associated with a sexual offence can lead to loss of jobs, relationships and reputation, even if the person is later acquitted or never charged. Some people accused of sexual offences have been named and then cleared, but their names remain linked to the allegation online forever.
Sexual offences are different. Many people argue that the stigma of being accused of a sexual offence is so severe that it justifies special protection, similar to the protection given to complainants.
Equality. If one side is protected because being named would cause great harm, it seems inconsistent not to protect the other side when being named would also cause great harm.
The case that it is fair
Others argue that the difference is justified.
The two positions are not the same. The complainant is a witness who reported a crime; the defendant is someone the state has decided to prosecute. Open justice applies most strongly to the exercise of state power against individuals.
Naming can help find the truth. In some cases, publicity about a defendant has led other victims to come forward, revealing patterns of offending that would otherwise have stayed hidden.
Anonymity for defendants might deter reporting. If defendants were anonymous, some argue, it could suggest that complainants are not believed, or might make it harder to build cases against repeat offenders.
Protection before charge already exists in part. In 2022 the UK Supreme Court confirmed that people under criminal investigation generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy before they are charged. That means the media in the UK usually cannot name suspects before charge without good reason. In this way, the law already protects people at the stage when they are most vulnerable to unfounded allegations.
Applying this to the Cornell case
If the Cornell case had happened in England, the complainant would have had automatic lifelong anonymity, and the media would probably not have been able to name the seven before charge, because of the privacy rules for suspects. Once charged, they would usually have been named. In the United States, by contrast, the accused were named before any charge, through a civil lawsuit and a student newspaper. Comparing the two systems shows that “fairness” depends on how we balance open justice, privacy and the encouragement of reporting.
Questions for discussion
Should defendants in sexual offence cases have anonymity until they are convicted? Until they are charged? Never? Would giving anonymity to defendants make it harder for victims to come forward? Is it fair that the stigma of a sexual offence accusation is so much greater than for many other crimes? And should complainants be able to waive anonymity if they want to speak publicly?