by Claude Opus 5.5
Compare UK practice (lifelong complainant anonymity; accused usually named on charge) with US practice. Which strikes the better balance?
The way the case behind these seminars has unfolded in public owes a great deal to American law and custom. The complainant is known as Jane Doe. The seven men she accused were named, before any criminal charge, in a civil lawsuit and then by a student newspaper. Had the same events occurred in England, the public story would almost certainly have looked different. Comparing the two systems helps clarify what values are at stake in naming and anonymity, and whether either has found a better balance.
The UK model
In England and Wales, complainants of sexual offences have automatic lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. It is a criminal offence to publish anything likely to identify them, unless they waive the protection in writing.
Suspects have no statutory anonymity, but two further features of UK law protect them in practice. First, in ZXC v Bloomberg (2022), the Supreme Court held that a person under criminal investigation generally has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that fact until charged. Media organisations therefore face liability for naming suspects before charge, absent a strong public interest. Second, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 imposes strict liability for publications that create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active proceedings, which become active on arrest. Once someone is charged, they are usually named, but the media must then avoid prejudicial commentary until the trial ends.
The result is a system that tightly protects complainants, moderately protects suspects before charge, and constrains coverage once proceedings are active.
The US model
In the United States, the First Amendment sharply limits legal restrictions on publication. In Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn (1975) and Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989), the Supreme Court held that the press could not be punished for publishing a rape victim’s name obtained lawfully from public records. Complainant anonymity therefore rests largely on media custom: most mainstream outlets do not name sexual assault victims without consent. Courts may allow plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms in civil cases, as here.
Suspects receive little legal protection. Arrest records and booking photographs are often public. Civil complaints naming defendants are public filings, and statements in them are privileged against defamation claims. Contempt of court for prejudicial publicity is constitutionally very limited, so fair trial rights are protected instead through jury selection, instructions and changes of venue.
The result is a system with strong press freedom and transparency, customary but fragile protection for complainants, and little protection for suspects from publicity.
Evaluating the balance
Several values are at stake, and each system serves them differently.
Encouraging reporting. Both systems protect complainants, but the UK does so by law and the US by custom. Legal protection is more reliable, especially in a social media environment where custom does not bind ordinary users. On this value, the UK model is stronger.
Protecting suspects from premature condemnation. The UK model offers far more protection before charge. In this case, the naming of seven uncharged men, and the resulting misidentification of an innocent man, would have been much less likely under UK law. On this value, the UK model is clearly stronger.
Fair trial. The UK’s contempt regime limits prejudicial coverage; the US relies on remedies after the fact. Most observers think the UK approach better protects the integrity of trials, though American scholars question whether it is necessary.
Open justice and accountability. Here the US model has real advantages. Its openness allows journalists and the public to scrutinise institutions, and the threat of exposure can deter institutional cover-ups. In this case, the public naming and the student newspaper’s investigation helped prompt the reopening. Critics of the UK model argue that its privacy and contempt rules can chill investigative journalism and protect the powerful.
Press freedom. The US model is plainly more protective of the press.
Which is better?
Neither system dominates on every value. The UK model better protects individuals, both complainants and suspects, and the integrity of trials. The US model better protects transparency and the press’s capacity to expose institutional failures.
A reasonable judgement is that, for the specific problem of naming individuals in sexual offence allegations, the UK model strikes the better balance. The harms of premature naming are severe and difficult to reverse, and the public interest in institutional accountability can usually be served without naming individuals before charge. Reporting on how the university, police and prosecutor handled the case does not require identifying the accused.
But the US model offers an important corrective. Where institutions are suspected of protecting the powerful, the capacity to name and publish can be essential. Any reform of the UK model should preserve a robust public interest exception, and any reform of American practice should focus on strengthening professional norms rather than legal restrictions, which would face serious constitutional obstacles.
Conclusion
The UK model protects individuals more effectively; the US model protects openness more effectively. For naming in sexual offence cases, the UK balance seems preferable, but not absolutely: both systems would benefit from recognising that the goals of individual protection and institutional accountability are distinct, and that the latter rarely requires sacrificing the former.