REPORTING SEXUAL OFFENCES Flashcards
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1992
Provides legal protection to victims / alleged victims of any sexual offence
Anonymity kicks in when allegation made to anyone
Over the age of 16, can give consent to waive anonymity and be identified. Consent MUST be in writing and consent can only be for one party, e.g. writing on twitter not consent, giving consent to dailymail is not consent for the sun
If victim / alleged victim is under age 16, cannot be identified even by parent or guardian – it is illegal
Anonymity for life applies even if rape complaint is later withdrawn
Unless the complainant is charged with an offence relating to making a false allegation
IPSO CODE CLAUSE 7 AND 11
Clause 7 - The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
2. In any press report of a case involving a sexual offence
against a child
i) The child must not be identified.
ii) The adult may be identified.
iii) The word “incest” must not be used where a child victim might be identified.
iv) Care must be taken that nothing in the report implies the relationship between the accused and the child.
Clause 11 - The press must not identify or publish material likely to lead to the identification of a victim of sexual assault unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so. Journalists are entitled to make enquiries but must take care and exercise discretion to avoid the unjustified disclosure of the identity of a victim of sexual assault.
SECTION 1 - SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1992
anonymity is not applied to reports of criminal proceedings where a person is charged with other offences
This is intended to cover a case where someone makes false claim of rape in court and is tried for perjury or wasting police time
CASES ANONYMITY CAN BE LIFTED
If someone accused of rape needs witnesses to come forward for their defence they can apply for restrictions to be lifted
If judge feels restrictions would create a ‘substantial and unreasonable restraint’ on reporting a trial in the public interest
