Fairness in treatment of suspects and complainants in serious sexual cases.

3.08.23pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 23rd Jun 2010

Luciana Berger 1.

The Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree, Luciana Berger, does not seem to understand the difference between being accused of something and being found guilty of it. She appears blasé about the fundamental British concept of justice of 'innocent until proven guilty'. More alarmingly she doesn't appear to understand the basic point of fairness that if an accuser of a serious crime is kept anonymous then it is fair that the person accused should have anonymity too, unless there is a good reason relating to that offence why not. It is right that those alleging rape are given anonymity due to the serious personal nature of the offence and longstanding problem of low rates of successful prosecution. It is not right that a man can be accused of a serious crime and have their reputation destroyed by an anonymous accuser if they are innocent. The only way to stop that is to provide equal protection for complainant and accused unless good reason for an exception that should be judged by a court not a politician.

Presumably on "on the implications for women" Luciana will consider the benefit to women not having their families and relationships torn apart by false allegations in the tiny minority of cases - a tiny minority but still important for the real people involved.

See: Oral Answers to Questions - Justice: Rape Convictions (15 Jun 2010)

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-06-15a.731.3&s=speaker%3A24924+speaker%3A24924#g731.6