Archive

Legal Topics

India: – Working Towards Changing Attitudes to Gender Bias

By
10 December, 2013
Kirsty McCurdy, Law & Equality, North East Law Review Blog Competition
Leave a Comment

Surrogate mothers pose for a photograph inside a temporary home for surrogates provided by Akanksha IVF centre in Anand town

Surrogate mothers (L-R) Daksha, 37, Renuka, 23, and Rajia, 39, pose for a photograph inside a temporary home for surrogates provided by Akanksha IVF centre in Anand town, about 70 km (44 miles) south of the western Indian city of Ahmedabad August 27, 2013. Credit: Reuters/Mansi Thapliyal (source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-india-girls-idUSBRE9AD0UZ20131114)

– Kirsty McCurdy (LLB Law, Newcastle University) kirstymccurdy@live.co.uk

This post was first published on Inherently Human: Critical Perspectives on Law Gender and Sexuality

Recently, the United Nations has created its first ever study into measuring the gender inequality and women’s environmental arena around the world. The index known as EGI – the Environment and Gender Index – ranks 72 counties in terms of how the countries actually make gender and environment mandates into national policy.  India has one of the worst gender differentials in child mortality of any country, ranking 132 out of 148 nations.

It is not surprising, given worldwide attention to the fatal rape case in Delhi that India is among one of the weakest performers on this index. Indeed, gender bias is seemingly rife in certain areas, as the British medical journal Lancet reported that estimated 12million female foetuses were aborted in the past three decades. The practice happens for a number of reasons: boys are seen as being good luck, and many families find that bearing a girl will impose a financial burden upon the family. This is due to the tradition of dowry, a tradition that is actually illegal but is still widely practiced acrossIndia. In dowry, when a woman has an arranged marriage, monetarial assets or property from the bride’s family are given to the groom as a kind of ‘bridal gift.’ This is why some families believe it is financially advantageous to bear a boy instead.

There still exists a law in Goathat allows men to marry a second wife if there is no son from the first marriage.  Indeed, Kirti Singh, a lawyer and author of the UN study entitled ‘The Law and Son Preference in India: A Reality Check’, stated that a lack of political will mean many progressive laws are not enforced. Other laws are even blatantly discriminatory and encourage the view that a male child is more valuable.

However, there have been initiatives that have sought to change attitudes towards woman and female babies. In regard to women, in the Southern State of Kerala, “She-Taxi’s” have been set up, to allow women only to conduct their own taxi businesses, to make it safer for women to travel around as well. It is a commendable scheme, hoping to empower woman and promote entrepreneurship. Perhaps this will slowly change society’s view that women are not as valuable as men, as this scheme shows they are capable of working equally as hard as men in society.

Lastly, there has also been a charity that has endeavoured to change negative attitudes towards having female babies. The initiative involves compiling boxes with various presents for a new-born baby, visiting families in hospitals where the mother has just given birth to a new-born baby girl and giving these gifts to the family and congratulating them on their new-born baby girl. This is a really charming idea of how to spread the love for newly-born girls. Hopefully, this attitude to love girls just as equally as boys will spread throughoutIndiaand gender bias will no longer be an issue. Here is a video of the charity in action: –

http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad/52982/The-Barn-Project-A-BBH-India-Initiative-The-Girl-Gift-Basket

 

 

An Interview with His Excellency Mr Gordon Campbell, Canada’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom

By
12 November, 2013
EU, Mary Wong
Leave a Comment

25 Oct 2013 -GC 1 (1)

As a token of our appreciation, on behalf of the Law Review I presented Mr. Campbell with a copy of our first volume, printed June 2013

– Mary Wong (LLB Law Newcastle University)

On Friday October 25th, the Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, His Excellency Mr. Gordon Campbell was scheduled for an afternoon meet & greet session with Canadian students at Newcastle University. Prior to this event, I met with Mr. Campbell for an interview. As a Canadian, it was an absolute pleasure and honour to have a one-on-one chat with a prominent Canadian figure who hails from the beautiful west coast city of Vancouver -which is special to me as my twin sister currently resides there. Here is what he has to say about his role as High Commissioner, the Canada-EU trade agreement, education, and British culture and recreation.

A. Canadian in the UK

1. I understand you have been based in London since your appointment to the role of High Commissioner, how do you like living in England? Do you miss the weather in British Columbia?

Well actually, the interesting thing is when I came to London, everyone said “Oh be careful of the weather in London.” I find it’s very similar to the weather in Vancouver – there’s lots of cloud; there is probably less rain than Vancouver. But no, the weather has not bothered me at all.

 

Do you miss Canada at all?

I miss my friends and those sorts of things, but you know one of the great things about being here is that I’m not here for the rest of my life. I look at this as an opportunity to absorb the United Kingdom, all of the culture, all of the history. [London] is an incredible international city – you get to meet people from all over the world.

 

2. What does your day-to-day life look like in your current position?

Most days I’m doing some business-related work, I’m trying to build partnerships, interest investors, and those sorts of things. The High Commission has responsibility for immigration and security and diplomatic services, commercial and economic diplomacy. You have a lot of meetings, you often represent Canada. Today I was representing Canada at Durham University, talking to students there about Canadian opportunities, and [to] Durham officials about possibilities of partnering with Canadian universities.

So we’re focusing on economic opportunity and educational opportunity and educational exchange, which I think is important in the long term. [Example:] the strength of Canada as a financial centre, as a dependable international partner. We’re dealing with lots of issues like Commonwealth reform. We’re in the middle of major activity to consolidate everything around Canada House at Trafalgar Square, and generate new activities for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

 

3. How have you found the transition from working in provincial politics and now at the international level for Canada?

In lots of ways there are lots of similarities, whether you’re the Premier or the High Commissioner, you are trying to put the best foot forward for your province or your country. I think it’s a great opportunity, I’ve been the mayor of Vancouver and Premier of British Columbia, this is an opportunity to do something for Canada, for the whole country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, from Saskatchewan to New Brunswick. So that part is a real opportunity for me, personally, and I hope I am doing a good job on behalf of all Canadians. But there [are] big differences between being an ambassador and being a political leader, and they are basically executive differences. Political leaders are responsible for putting in place plans, making sure they get executed and bringing them forward. I can make recommendations, but my political leader, John Baird, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the man I work for, I do the things I hope are reflective of his policies and the Prime Ministers’ policies. I try to encourage people to follow along with that.

 

B. Canada-EU Trade

1. What are your thoughts on the Canada-EU Trade discussions?

I think it would be very good for the EU and Canada. I think there are whole lot of opportunities, certainly for Canada and the United Kingdom, both depend on trade  – [it is our] economic life-blood. You think of the vast mineral wealth of Canada, the reason we have vast mineral wealth – and it helps create a quality of life for us – is that it is traded out of the borders.

 

2. As High Commissioner, how do you think you can contribute to these discussions in the UK on Canada’s behalf?

We will provide you with the information you want. I think when you look at the United Kingdom’s economic strategies and Canada’s, they’re basically the same: we both need trade to improve the quality of life. We both need trade to make sure we have job. Some people say we should not go forward with trade. [For example,] we’ll use my province because that’s the one I am most familiar with: there [are] dozens of mills in British Columbia. The demand we would place on any one of those mills from British Columbia would take care of about one mill. If we didn’t have trade, you probably reduce the [number of] mills in British Columbia by 85% or 90% – that is a whole lot of people who aren’t working – but they are working because of trade. And so, I think you just have to start by understanding how important trade is in Canada, and then you think of the competitive advantage of having a trade agreement with the European Union, and a trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We will be the only country in the world that has trade agreements with those two predominant markets, and they are dominating markets in world trade. So it’s a great place for Canada to be, and it’s great for our economy, and it’s great for jobs, and it opens doors of opportunities for everybody.

 

3. What do you think Canadians back home and here in the UK can do to prepare for the impact of this trade agreement?

First thing I think everyone should have is confidence in themselves and what Canada could do. We sometimes look beyond Canada’s strengths. Canada is very strong economically. We’re very strong in terms of our business culture and investment culture. We take a lot of the risks out of investments. I think to know that is to be able to tell the Canadian story. The reason we launched “Canada Plus” here in London, in the United Kingdom, is because we want people to know Canada’s universities and scientists and thought leaders, manufacturers and agriculturalists and energy providers – we have all those things in Canada. So when we think of that and then think of how do we meet the needs of a 500 million person market in the European Union, that’s the largest single market in the world, right? It’s a 17 trillion dollar economy.

 

What would you say to those Canadians who are concerned about the competition part, like the dairy farmers and auto industry?

I think you always hear concerns about competition whenever you make a change. So in British Columbia there was a lot of change at the end of the Free Trade Agreement from the wine industry, for example. The wine industry today in British Columbia is thriving, and this is why: [because] they are good at what they do. So [we] have to have confidence in ourselves – we’re good at what we do. So Canada had an Olympics in 2010. We said ‘let’s put Canada behind this Olympics,’ and we did. We said ‘let’s put Canada behind our Olympic athletes,’ and we did. And what happened? We had the most successful Winter Olympics in the history of the Winter Olympics. So we beat all of the criteria that would have normally been set if you wanted a competition. We won more gold medals than any country in the history of the Games. Those are things that should remind us of what we could do as Canadians. One of the advantages of going overseas or going somewhere else, is that you realize all the strengths of Canada. When I say that, that does not mean that we do not have things we have to do better – doesn’t mean we have it all perfect – but [it] means we have an awful lot of advantages in competing in the international market place. So the challenge of the market place is to make it a fair playing field, and the way to do that is you reduce all of the barriers that stop it from being fair, which is what the trade agreement does.

Change is always difficult; [but] it will create enormous opportunities in manufacturing, enormous opportunities in the agricultural industry generally.

 

C. Education

1. What are your thoughts on Canadians coming to the UK to study?

I think everyone who can, should. I think it’s a great opportunity to be here. I think it expands the world of education beyond what happens in the classroom in the university. You come here [and] you are exposed to a different culture, different place, [and] different outlook on the world. The more Canadians who can get outside of Canada and get some of their education there, the better off we are as a country, [and] the better off they are as students.

 

2. Do you think this choice to study in the UK makes a detrimental remark about the quality of Canadian education?

Absolutely not, and for the same reason I think Canadians should come to the UK, UK students should go to Canada. I think part of the world’s top quality education today is exposure to international opportunities. It is exposure to different cultures, it’s exposure to different languages, it’s exposure to different outlets. When we do that, we learn; and when we learn we can understand; when we can understand, we can solve problems.

 

3. Each year there is a number of students that come to the UK to pursue the English LLB (Bachelor of Laws) and some hope to return to Canada to practice upon graduation. Many students have cited as their reasons: the difficulty of obtaining a spot in Canadian law schools due to high admission standards and lack of space, and costly LSAT fees. What are your thoughts on this?

It’s hard for me to be opposed to high admission standards, because we’re looking for excellence across the board – professional excellence. I think there are some challenges in terms of creating spaces, but there are a fair number of law schools across Canada that provide opportunities, but there’s probably never quite enough. But I think that people who come here and get legal training here are going to find it’s an excellent education. And then they are going to pass their Bar exams in Canada and all those sorts of things. I think we have to think of more complementary education as opposed to conflicting/ competing education. There are some interesting challenges they face, but they are challenges that can be met, and there’s a lot of difficulties in going into law still, but these are real opportunities, so that’s a positive.

 

4. Now that you are working in England, do you recommend Canadian students who have studied in the UK to work here for a few years after graduation, before returning home to Canada?

I make no recommendations. I think it’s always up to you as a person, as an individual.

We have a youth exchange programme which allows Canadians to come and be in the United Kingdom for two years, and just to experience things in the United Kingdom, they don’t have a job, it’s a special program – same thing for UK students back in Canada; those are good things I think. So I think in terms of those things, they’re really personal choices. What I think is really important is: you do what is best for you. As long as you pursue your goals and your dreams, you’ll be in great shape.

 

D. Culture and Recreation

1. Which British dishes have you tried since your arrival in the UK? Do you have any favourites or recommendations?

I’m not really keen on kidney pie, beef or steak – I’m fine. When I hear blood pudding, I don’t say ‘I can hardly wait until I eat it!’ I like haggis, I’m from Scotland. I never figured out the purpose behind mushy peas. But do I have a favourite? I’ll give the British fish and chips, and that’s my favourite.

 

2. What activities would you recommend Canadians living in or visiting the UK to try while they are here?

There’s no end. The first thing is to know there’s more than one place here. So whether you’re going to Winchester Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, or you’re going up north to Aberdeen, whether you’re golfing in Northern Ireland, or art galleries in Cardiff and London, I recommend that. It’s a rich, rich place for history, for culture. Go to Bonfire Night, go to Remembrance Day service. Go to the pageant they have for the City of London when they turn over the keys. All of those things are rich in culture and costume, and they are pretty exciting to see.

 

And go to the Canada Day celebrations in London that you will be hosting.

You have to go to the Trafalgar Square Canada Day celebrations -everyone talks about them! It’s a great event and everyone is welcome!

 

3. Name one new activity or dish, which is typically British, that you would like to try in the near future.

I should probably go to a cricket game. I haven’t done that yet, It’s a perplexing pastime to me, people at work are totally engaged in cricket. I used to play cricket when I was in elementary school.

 

Have you watched a Manchester United game in Manchester?

I have not watched a Manchester United game in Manchester. I haven’t gone to a football game of any sort of the big rivals. And my colleagues tell me you have to be careful of what you wear, who you cheer for – good sportsmanship is not necessarily something to be admired in the stands.

 

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. I look forward to your Meet & Greet at Newcastle University later this afternoon.

 

Legal Aid: The Price of Justice

By
25 October, 2013
Law & Practice, Michael Keightley
Leave a Comment

legalaidcuts

Image Source: http://converseprisonnews.com/

– Michael Keightley (LLB Law, Newcastle University) m.keightley@hotmail.co.uk

Substantial cuts made to the welfare system in April 2013 have been met with public outrage. In order to save an approximate £350m per-year, legal aid has been scrapped entirely for cases of divorce, welfare benefit disputes, child contact, clinical negligence and employment.

Further changes are restrictions in housing law, with legal aid only being allowed in extreme circumstances. Not to mention the ethically questionable decision that, in order to receive legal aid in cases of domestic violence, the victim is required to provide medical evidence. Alongside all of these changes, employment tribunals will now cost a minimum of £160 before you even attend the hearing and could result in a total cost of £1,200 for ‘complex’ cases, based around issues such as unfair dismissal or discrimination.

Consider the amount of people using the legal aid system in 2009/2010 (an approximate 2,965,000) and compare that to the Government’s aim to save £350m. From this we can see that the Government would save a mere £118.04 per-head – leaving almost 3million people without proper access to justice for a relatively low reward.

Are we not living in a society of equal treatment? Not to say the legal system has been altered. The intentions of the legal system, as a whole, remain to be fair and indiscriminative. The issue is the accessibility of a fair system. It becomes difficult to profess that a system is fair if all cannot properly access it. Attorney General Dominic Grieve argues that “everyone has a reasoned plan for why expenditure should not be cut from their area”, but this does not concern the legal system as a single area, it concerns the constitutional right of every individual’s access to justice.

These changes adversely affect those on low-incomes by not allowing help with the legal support that can ensure they treated rightfully. Take, for example, if someone on a low income were unfairly dismissed for their race or belief; they would be left with no income and no means to follow the issue up in an employment tribunal. This loss of income could branch out into issues with rent, claiming Jobseekers or obtaining future employment.

This need for assistance will then shift to private charities, such as The Citizen’s Advice Bureau, and people will be forced to face their issues with the limited assistance of these charities, or their own knowledge of the system. An even worse possibility is that they may feel forced into finding funding for legal representation elsewhere, which could be bank loans or high-interest payday loans.

But this extends beyond financial issues. When domestic violence victims are doubted through the need to submit medical evidence of their victimisation, it becomes an ethical issue. Breaking ethical boundaries like this could create a rift of mistrust between the people and the system they rely on to deliver justice.

For the legal system itself, lawyers could lose a significant amount of clients. With the area of criminal law having 1,358,000 acts of assistance funded by legal aid, criminal lawyers are also bound to suffer. Grieve also commented upon this issue, giving his sympathy for the lawyers that were to be affected, stating, “for self-employed people it is death by a thousand cuts and it’s an extremely painful process”. It is this issue of ‘self-employment’ that seems to be receiving such little consideration – it would seem nonsensical to stop people entering a local shop and buying groceries due to a choice based on their financial income, so it should be regarded as equally unfair that the government are forcing a restriction to the business of many self-employed lawyers.

It is difficult to draw a positive from these cuts. With adverse effects to the idea of ‘justice’ and people’s belief in the system under which they are ruled, it would be more relevant to refer to a Marxist approach, where the classes are being treated differently based on their income. Such a huge change that was rallied against by 96,000 people through an e-petition; the conclusion left to draw is that such budget cuts have shackled the concept of justice and limited people’s utilization of their rights.

 

Are We Switched on to the Threat of Blackouts?

By
21 October, 2013
Catherine Caine, Environmental Law
Leave a Comment

unsplash_528e297be299b_1

– Catherine Caine (PhD Student, Newcastle University) c.a.caine@newcastle.ac.uk

We’re all aware of the recent news pieces that have hit the headlines over the past weeks following labour leader, Ed Miliband’s, claim to freeze energy prices. The average householder has been hit with arguments that such a price freeze is not possible, as well as fears of impending blackouts to their power supply over the next five years and the prospect of large price rises from the major energy suppliers. With this barrage of news, one could be forgiven for regarding this as a fairly murky time for those who require electricity in their day-to-day lives (to quote a certain political parties’ mantra “we’re all in this together”). With every new story that blesses the front pages, we are led to further question the energy “master plan” that our government has put in place, and whether these plans provide for secure energy in the future. After all, how much of the political posturing on energy prices that we hear is realistic? To what extent is a four year government capable of planning for sustainable energy generation in the future? Is our government bound by law to certain energy deals? And can the government change the goalposts on energy projects that have already been agreed?

With an upcoming election in the UK, party conferences are promising a considerable number of changes to energy policies with the assumed aim of winning around the average voter who is discontented by the cost of his energy bills. However in reality, the chances of these glamorous promises becoming practice are slim. The reasons behind this claim are not due to political backtracking, or the realisation of our financial situation (both reasons will, and have, played a major part in politicians reneging) but are due to reasons such as inability to break contractual obligations that have been made, and the need to comply with European and International law. For example, take the recent proposal from the Conservative Party to prevent the growth of wind farms and other forms of renewable energy from blighting the countryside. Recent claims from the Conservative Party have accused wind farms of becoming a “gravy train threatening to career out of control” with an average of seven wind farm applications being made in Scotland on a daily basis.  As a result, the Government has hit back against its own policy, claiming that by removing funding and subsidies from green energy, the bill-payer’s bill will automatically be reduced by £110. However, this claim has been swiftly rejected by a senior member of the Liberal Democrat party who argues that cutting such subsidies would not be legally possible, as the contracts for green energy construction have already been agreed.

In addition to the legal barrier of having to cancel existing construction contracts for green energy sources, the Government must also be mindful of the European and international obligations that it has agreed to adhere to. For example, under the Conservative’s claim that it will curb the construction of green projects, the UK runs the risk of not complying with certain European Directives that it has entered into regarding renewable energy and climate change. A recent report from the European Union indicates that the UK has already failed to meet its 2010 targets for increasing the share of renewable energy in the electricity sector, and shows that the failings in the European Union are most prominent in the wind sector. It is suggested that, given the fact that the UK has already fared poorly with regards to meeting its renewable energy target within the EU, Government proposals to cut green energy further may result in the UK risking non-compliance with the Directive. In addition to the commitments that the UK has made under the European Union, there are also a number of international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol (as recently amended by the Doha Amendment) that must be taken into consideration when making allowances for our future energy supply.

It seems, therefore, that lurking behind all of the political posturing that currently lines the newspapers; there remains a set number of obligations and legally binding contracts that the UK has already committed itself to regardless of what is being said in order to win an election. As we have seen, the comments made by politicians leading up to the election have already had a profound effect on the actions of energy companies. Since Ed Miliband’s claim to freeze energy prices, two of the major energy companies have declared large price increases, resulting in thousands of customers deciding to switch suppliers before price rises affect them. Ed Miliband’s claims have been called irresponsible by some for their impact on current energy prices, whilst others criticise the plans for their ability to stunt investment and growth in the energy sector. Whether or not you agree with Mr Miliband’s answer to high energy prices, his suggestion, along with its consequences, serves as a good example of the pitfalls that face an energy sector that is guided by short-term governments. Energy generation and supply requires long term planning. Combine this with evidence of climate change, and a desire to lower carbon emissions, and we are left with a need for this long term planning to be sustainable. With a government in the UK that often works around a 4 year plan, politicians are left with the choice of being a hero today and stunting investment in the energy sector in future, or the unpopular decision of raising consumer bills in order to invest in green energy today.

In summary, the outlook on our future energy generation is unclear. Whilst we are bombarded with policies from politicians who claim to be acting in our best interest, it is important to scrutinise the validity of such claims in light of the legal contracts and obligations that already exist. We are all aware that politicians may well make promises and claims ahead of an election that they will not keep (the chime of “tuition fees” remains a sore subject for many). However, point scoring and election tactics will not prevent the lights from going out if action isn’t taken to secure our energy future.

 

 

 

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Anonymity of Celebrity Defendants in Sexual Abuse Cases

By
16 September, 2013
Criminal Law, Jessica Randell, Media Law
Leave a Comment

Michael Le Vell (Image source: http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2013-09-02/coronation-street-actor-michael-le-vell-arrives-at-manchester-crown-court-to-face-trial-for-a-series-of-child-sex-offences/)

– Jessica Randell (LLB Law, Newcastle University) j.m.randell@ncl.ac.uk

In England and Wales a suspect in criminal law is supposedly innocent until proven guilty. This has been emphasised by the introduction of this right in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), article 6(2), as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. However, in practice, this process rarely occurs. With details of accusations, the trial and personal details regarding the suspect banded about in the media, both social and otherwise, it is less of a reality and more of an ideal. This is becoming more and more prevalent in the wake of the so-called ‘celebrity witch-hunt,’ particularly regarding allegations of sexual offences against children with famous celebrities in the dock. These include, but are by no means limited to; the children’s entertainer Jimmy Savile, Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell and presenter Stuart Hall.

Both prior to and during the ‘celebrity’ trials that have been seen so far the media have been publishing intimate details about the alleged offences yet they are refusing to anonymise the name of the accused. Whether this is the right thing to do has divided the public but this is far from a new debate and it is, most definitely, not something that has gone unquestioned in the past. In the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, for example, rape suspects were granted anonymity but this was later removed as it was deemed unjustified that those accused of rape should be distinguished from other criminal defendants. The complainant, on the other hand, retained their right not to be named and this too is criticised. It has even been questioned by our current coalition government as to whether this aspect of our judicial system needs changing but they too have decided to leave it untouched. Many questions arise from this. Is it fair? Should it be changed? And what are the alternatives?

A false accusation of a sexual offence can, as with most areas of law, destroy an individual’s privacy, relationships and livelihood; this much is acknowledged. Many will claim that the revealing of the defendant’s real name during a trial should be kept under wraps until a guilty verdict is reached. It is submitted that this should not occur. Our judicial system boasts about its unique approach to open justice; this allows for the monitoring of the inner workings of the system, to account for fair and accurate recordings of trials, to deter potential wrong-doers, to satisfy complainants who may need their ‘day in court’ and to generally uphold democracy. In accordance with this an open court allows for trials to be accessed by the public and the press alike and means that cases can be freely and openly reported on in the interest of the right to freedom of speech (see article 10, ECHR). Some may argue that allowing such reporting is an example of the right to free speech trumping an individual’s right to respect for their privacy (see article 8, ECHR). However, as with all collisions of these two fundamental freedoms; one will always prevail. This occurs despite their equal weighting as it is judged in light of a balancing exercise, where one will always outweigh the other, which is based on several factors; not least including those listed above.

Using the example of actor Michael Le Vell, who was recently cleared of twelve counts of sexual abuse against a child, including five counts of rape, he has suffered several personal setbacks as a result of the trial. He was suspended from his work as an actor on the soap Coronation Street for seven months prior to this verdict and his private life has been monumentally thrust into the public domain. This included releasing evidence regarding his alcoholism, extra-marital affairs and intimate details regarding his sex life. Some argue that this should never have been allowed in that it will discolour the public’s opinion of him. Furthermore, that it means we are no longer adhering to the right to remain innocent until the prosecution can prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the standard of proof in England and Wales. There is also the argument that such false accusations will not be removed from all media forms as, for example, it will remain only a simple search away in any internet search-engine. Such would only further bring these accusations to light either at the moment or at any time succeeding these events; meaning the actor is affected both now and in the future.

Despite these criticisms, pertaining specifically to celebrities, allowing for the anonymity of such defendants would incur several difficulties. These would include; determining the difference in treatment between celebrities and non-celebrities, how to distinguish between who is famous and who is not, the impact of social media exposure of personal details of those involved and the prevention of providing a publicised channel through which to encourage other complainants to come forward. The negative consequences for the innocently accused are recognised as being rife in such high profile cases; but why should the maintaining of a celebrity’s career and personal life surpass that of the average defendant?

An alternative, as has been advocated by the public, is to prevent the publication of any defendant’s details in such sexual abuse cases, whether the defendant is famous or not. This is surely unworkable in a system such as ours; what would happen to the free speech of those working in the media? How would we justify anonymising defendants in just one area of law? Would potential complainants feel this means there is perceived to be a larger number of false accusations in this particular area and how would this affect those scared to come forward?

If this was a feasible option it seems that the anonymity of rape defendants would never have been abolished, as it was, in 1988. It would have remained and simply been extended to cover all defendants in sexual abuse cases or, further, all criminal defendants. However, would it stop at just the name of the defendant being anonymised or would this extend to details of this case being kept secret? Surely it would become obvious to some people who the case concerned if all details were released bar a name? Regardless of it being a name or all details of a case only released upon a guilty verdict, with an appellate system such as ours, it would be extremely impracticable. If, for example, a defendant was found to be innocent at trial but later found guilty, upon travelling along the multiplicity of avenues awarded by our sought-after judicial system, what then occurs? If personal details were then to be released, would this include details from the very beginning of the case or limited to that appellate stage? What if the decision was then reversed again? Would this mean releasing details of a defendant only when it reaches the final stage in our system – ultimately this would be at the Supreme Court – or would this be extended to the European Court of Human Rights? If all of these questions were answered and it was deemed appropriate only to release information at the final stage of the case then further issues arise; in so far as how are students, academics and practitioners alike expected to apply and analyse the law without tracking its development as it occurs? A lack of legal certainty would no doubt ensue as there would be no indication as to how the law stood leading up to a final decision and how it could, potentially, be developed in the future.

There are alternative ways in which to adjust the system which do not involve anonymising the name of the defendant or, further, details of the trial until a guilty verdict is reached; but these too appear unlikely. They include setting a time limit on all online articles with an expiration date for them to delete themselves after the conclusion of the trial; hopefully mirroring the memory of the average reader. This would mean that information cannot be accessed in the future regarding innocent defendants. Arguably, if it is not on an individual’s criminal record then it should not be accessible on the internet. Alternatively, we could anonymise the name of the individual in any media form; leaving them only to be mentioned in the trial and in the judgement. It seems this would require some form of an injunction but appears unlikely, particularly in light of being able to post anonymously on social media websites or instead posting under your real name, along with thousands of others, with the comforting thought that it is unlikely all will be prosecuted. Finally, an update or editorial note could be added to anything published electronically or in future hard copies of newspapers, for example. This seems most likely but would not deter from the publishing of information as a trial is on-going.

These potential options would, most likely, still not be deemed appropriate by those keen to protect every aspect of the defendant’s private life. None of them offer ultimate protection for the innocent party nor do they solve the issue of unfairness in so far as the claimant remains anonymous but the defendant does not. It appears that what is desired is an all or nothing approach; all parties are named or none at all. However, it must be remembered that it is not just the falsely accused who has to endure a trial; the complainant too has to undergo fierce cross-examination, speculation and then the aftermath. The complainant may not be publically named but, post-trial, has to deal with either their abuser being acquitted or having to deal with the consequences of falsely accusing an innocent person. Some may argue any such consequences are deserved, some may not. Either way it will be the innocent party, not the complainant, who will have media reports documenting their innocence which, in any search engine or in any hard copy of a newspaper, will be the most recent news on the accusations. Le Vell, for example, has already been invited back to work and has had a barrage of support from friends, family and now the repenting press. In direct conjunction, the complainant will always have to live with the knowledge of the destruction their false accusations have, or could have, caused.

The press claim that there is a public interest in celebrities and their potential criminal activity and that justice must be seen to be done; thus celebrities do not escape media speculation surrounding legal action. It is accepted that the publicity surrounding a celebrity trial is extensive and may far out-strip that of the average defendant but, it is submitted, that a defence of public interest should exist as a means of justification for publically documenting a criminal trial. That public interest should not be in the individual as a celebrity but in that individual as a role model who has supposedly committed criminal acts.  This public interest defence is not, therefore, in existence to discover sordid details about an actor’s sex life, for example, but rather to unearth the truth about accusations that have been made against them. Once acquitted, however, the falsely accused should be able to return to their normal life as best facilitated by those around them; family, friends, employers and supporters.

One will note that more questions are being asked than answered in this blog but that in itself only further evidences that this is not a cut and dry issue as purported by the public. It is all well and good to criticise our legal system but when no workable example can be proposed, that satisfies the complaints being made, it is submitted that it is clear that we are where we are for a reason. Media speculation may well make an individual defendant feel they are not being treated as innocent until proven guilty; but it must be remembered that speculation is exactly what it is. The jury are the keepers of the (prison) keys and only they will decide a verdict based on all the evidence put before them at trial; they are reminded of their duties to be independent by the Judge and are given the opportunity to relinquish those duties at the beginning of the trial. The media may seek to damage a celebrity’s reputation but it is up to the reader to make an educated opinion of the accused based upon the verdict given at trial. Only if a negative opinion of the defendant is formed prior to the verdict will the accused be guilty until proven innocent; and, after all, if they are indeed innocent then the truth will ultimately prevail.