Report comment

Around 15 years ago, I wrote my LL.B dissertation on the topic of trial by media, and within it argued for anonymity for those accused of serious and/or high profile offences, such anonymity to prevail unless and until conviction. Two law lecturers who marked it gave me an absolute trashing marks-wise. Neither marker had ever practised, and one was a militant feminist who actually once said in a lecture I attended, that "all men are potential rapists". Each was highly critical of the possibility of anonymity, and I honestly can't understand why. What is there to fear by refusing to taint someone's character before a court of competent jurisdiction has determined guilt?

Surely it is fairer for a jury to approach serious cases as fresh as they would to something more minor that wasn't as interesting to the media? How can we reasonably justify releasing the name (and in the Gatwick drone case, photographs) of people who haven't even been charged, let alone convicted?