New Justice Secretary says rape suspects should stay anonymous

Number 10 were at loggerheads with the new justice secretary last night over protecting the identity of suspected sex offenders.

Robert Buckland, QC, claimed people arrested on suspicion of rape should remain anonymous until charged – if they have reputations to protect.

He said there was ‘merit’ in extending anonymity for suspects of all serious crimes, The Times reported.

But last night a Number 10 source shut down his controversial suggestion, claiming: ‘This is not government policy’.

The former prisons minister, who took over from David Gauke last week, supports Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini’s campaign to protect the identity of sexual offence until charged.

Although guidance for the police and Crown Prosecution Service says the names of suspects should not be published until charge without justification – they can still be identified by other means.

It has been argued that naming suspects ahead of charge can be crucial to gathering evidence.

But Mr Buckland, 50, said judges should be able to issue an order that suspects cannot be identified.

The former criminal law barrister said he believes the case to protect the identity of people with damaged reputations is weaker.

‘Let’s say you are a reputable local businessperson who is accused of fraud. Your good name is going to be really undermined by this mere accusation. You are a person of good character. That might be a meritorious case for anonymity,’ he said.

He told The Times: ‘Let’s say you are a person with a list of previous convictions. You’ve committed offences. There is intelligence out there that suggests that other victims might come forward. Is that a case where anonymity should be automatic?’

Victims commissioner Dame Vera Baird said: ‘There is sometimes a public interest in disclosing the name of an arrestee prior to charge if there may be a prospect of other complainants stepping forward’.

The move was welcomed by Daniel Janner QC, son of falsely accused Labour peer Lord Greville Janner, and founder of pressure group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair).

Mr Buckland said those with reputations to protect should remain anonymous while suggesting anonymity would be less justifiable for those of worse character.

He told the paper: ‘Let’s say you are a reputable local business person who is accused of fraud.

‘Your good name is going to be really undermined by this mere accusation.

‘That might be a meritorious case for anonymity.’

But he added: ‘Let’s say you are a person with a list of previous convictions. You’ve committed offences. There is intelligence out there that suggests that other victims might come forward.

‘Is that a case where anonymity should be automatic?’

But the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) last night said they were dead set against the idea.

Chris Henley, QC, chairman of the CBA said: ‘Open, transparent justice is a fundamental principle of our system. The law must be applied equally whoever you are; money and apparent status should never be a card that can be played by the powerful to hide behind.

‘Whilst the police behaved lamentably in the Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini cases, it would be profoundly wrong to divide suspects into ‘people like us’ who are allowed anonymity, and the rest of society who are not.’

Sir Cliff has campaigned for anonymity since police raided his Berkshire flat in 2014 in an operation Yewtree investigation. Police announced in 2016 that he would not be charged.

Mr Gambaccini, 70, was named after he was arrested on suspicion of historical sexual offences in 2013 but he did not face charges. Sir Cliff, 78, was wrongly accused of sexual assault in 2014. He was never arrested.

They are both members of campaign group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform which calls for a ‘re-balancing of the legal system’ in Britain.

Mr Gambaccini said: ‘There is no reason in principle why an anonymity rule could not be extended to other serious alleged offences.’

Mr Buckland said there should be no special dispensation for sexual offences, saying it ‘would be wrong to single [them] out’ from, for example, suspected fraudsters. He said such an approach would be ‘misconceived’.