Lawyers representing rape victims have been up in arms over the coalition government’s recent commitment to introduce anonymity for defendants in rape cases, up until the point where they are convicted.Although it was part of the Lib Dem manifesto, it wasn’t a policy that many were expecting to see being implemented as a priority by the new government.

The arguments raised by victims’ lawyers against anonymity for defendants are pretty compelling. For one thing, it is publicity about a rape charge that often leads to other victims coming forward, particularly as many rapists are serial offenders.

Also, you have to question why men accused of rape should be given the protection of anonymity, when those accused of other repellant crimes – murder, for example – are not.

It is undoubtedly true that there can be a social stigma attached to a man who is charged with rape, even if he is ultimately convicted, but wouldn’t the same apply to someone acquitted of murder? What then is the rationale behind a special rule for rape defendants? It seems to be an implication that men accused of rape are more likely to have been falsely accused, ie by deceitful women.

Are there really a higher number of false accusations when it comes to rape than there are for other crimes?

Baroness Stern examined this issue in her comprehensive review of rape in March this year. She found the available research gave such a wide range of figures for the number of false claims, that it was essentially impossible to know the real answer. While some said the percentage of false claims was 8-10%, others said there were very few. Stern recommended that thorough research should be undertaken to establish the true picture once and for all.

So where did Stern sit in relation to the potential anonymity of defendants? Disappointingly, she stayed very carefully on the fence. She said in her report:

‘Linked to the matter of false allegations is the question often raised of allowing defendants in rape cases to retain their anonymity unless they are convicted, a proposal supported by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2003.

‘The current law protects complainants by granting them anonymity throughout the legal process. Their names cannot be published from the time of the allegation for the rest of their lives. It is often argued that this anonymity should be extended to defendants unless and until they are convicted.

‘It was put to us by some we talked to that even when defendants are acquitted, "If you throw mud it sticks". A legal practitioner told us: "It would be a serious advance if we did provide anonymity for both parties."

‘It was argued that the newspapers give a great deal of coverage of the opening of a trial with full details of the defendant, but by the time the trial ends, if the defendant is acquitted it has ceased to be newsworthy and the acquittal is not reported.

‘On the other hand, it is suggested that the acquittal gives "public vindication" and that should be sufficient, and defendants in other cases do not have anonymity.

‘We make no recommendation on anonymity for defendants but note that it is often raised and the concerns will undoubtedly continue. A full examination of the issues would be helpful to the debate.’

Of course, whether anonymity for defendants in rape trials is right or wrong – and for the record, I think it is the wrong approach because of the signal it sends out about ‘deceitful’ women – there are, of course, myriad practical difficulties that will need to be dealt with. Will anonymity apply just to rape, or to lesser sexual assault charges? Defendants are often charged with both, or agree to plead guilty to a sexual assault if the rape charge is dropped. If anonymity is only applied to rape, that will create a lot of problems – but is such an exemption from the usual principle of open justice warranted for lesser offences?

It also leaves open the inevitable question of whether the same anonymity should be granted to those accused of paedophilia, a crime that arguably carries an even greater ‘stigma’.

Returning to Baroness Stern for one final point, those who campaign on behalf of rape victims often use the statistic that rape has only a 5% conviction rate to highlight their cause. But as Stern strongly points out, this figure is misleading and has to some extent taken over the debate.

The 5% rate refers to the percentage of rapes recorded by the police which end in a conviction. But most crimes are not judged in this way, but are measured in terms of the percentage of cases actually brought to court which end with a conviction. For rape, that figure is 58%. But as no one is suggesting that the number of false reports is anywhere near as high as 42%, it is still clear that the system is failing victims. Reforms that are focused on the rights of defendants will do nothing to address that.