---

Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill

moved Amendment No. 11: 11: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— ““Anonymity in rape cases A person, or persons, who has been granted anonymity in a court of law for the purposes of giving evidence in a trial of a person charged with an offence of rape may lose that anonymity where the following circumstances apply— (a) the Criminal Cases Review Commission has declared the conviction of a person as unsafe on the basis of false evidence having been provided by the person, or persons, granted anonymity; (b) a judge, following upon the reference to the Court of Appeal of a conviction by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, sets aside the conviction and in the public interest requires the removal of anonymity from the person, or persons, who has given false evidence.”” The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which should be welcomed by the Government as it seeks to bring into law only that which the Government already appear to have in mind for inclusion in primary legislation. It develops the principle of discharge as set out in Clause 6 of the Bill. Furthermore, it is a transparency amendment, one in a series of such amendments that I have been introducing during the consideration of a number of Bills. These transparency amendments provide members of the public with the information they require to enable them to make more informed judgments in the conduct of their personal lives and in the decisions they take. The beneficiaries here would be men whose actions might be influenced by the availability of such information. The amendment stems directly from a number of highly-publicised cases, in particular that of Warren Blackwell, a man who spent three years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. Warren Blackwell, a Midlands businessman of impeccable reputation, had been convicted on the basis of a tissue of lies from a woman who had a history of false allegations and a conviction for robbery. Over a period of 17 years, under eight different aliases, she had made accusations of rape against her father in 1984, her stepfather, a local boy in 1983, and further rapes and sexual attacks in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. On three separate occasions she alleged that she had been attacked from behind with a knife. Yet, having accused Blackwell of rape and with police files bulging with information on previous offences alleged by the accuser, Blackwell was prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for three years. Unbelievably, the then Attorney-General successfully appealed against the shortness of the sentence and it was increased to five years. Following the efforts of a policeman and the diligence of Annie Johnston, a barrister, in 2004 the Criminal Cases Review Commission intervened and referred the whole case back to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the conviction was unsafe. The judge reversed the conviction. The problem was that the accuser, whose background had been exposed, could not be named because of the provisions in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Under that Act, whereas under Section 3 the trial judge has a ““get out”” discretion, as I call it, to remove lifelong anonymity, in the Court Appeal the judge does not have that discretion. In the Blackwell case in the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Hallett said: "““The judgment we have delivered gives rise to the concern that there may in the future be another case in which this complainant makes similar allegations against another man. If that were to happen, it would be in the interests of justice that the alleged attacker should be able to find out about and use in his defence the information contained in the report of the [CCRC] and referred to in this judgment. Parliament does not appear to have contemplated the risk of a complainant acting as this complainant is alleged to have done. We are concerned that there appears to be no means by which we can displace a complainant’s entitlement to anonymity in the interests of justice for any person against whom she may make allegations in the future””." Before anyone argues that I am calling for an end to anonymity for all women, I wish to make it clear that this is not the case. I am not arguing that anonymity of the accuser should automatically be lifted where a defendant is not found guilty. A rape may well have taken place and the prosecution may have been unsuccessful because of jury prejudice, an insufficiency of evidence or even jury concerns over the scale of penalty which might be imposed for what some jurors might feel is an act on the margins of consent and compulsion. In other words, we cannot condemn the great majority of women who allege rape but cannot convince a jury in a court of law. My amendment does not penalise them. However, a small minority are telling lies and their lies and false allegations are often uncovered only when their history of false allegations is exposed. Men have a right to be protected from false allegations and a right to know that the development of a relationship with a serial false accuser, who may make an accusation of rape, can ruin their lives. I am aware of a number of cases where false allegations have destroyed men’s reputations and even led on some occasions to suicide. My amendment will affect very few cases. According to an answer given on 23 February 2007, only 32 rape cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission since 1997, an average of three a year. My amendment seeks to deal only with cases referred by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal. Removal of anonymity would not be automatic as there are circumstances where mental health may be an issue for the judge in the Court of Appeal to decide upon. The question is whether this Bill is the right vehicle for such an amendment. Not absolutely, but it is very near to being a vehicle. I understand the distinction that my noble friend may wish to draw at the Dispatch Box today, but that is for the Government to consider and Parliament to decide upon. We know that the Government are sympathetic. I understand that my right honourable friend Mr Mike O’Brien, a Member of the other House, as Solicitor-General, in early 2007 told the Times newspaper that: "““The Government has no plans to remove anonymity for complainants in the vast majority of cases””—" with which I agree. However, his departmental brief went on to say that, "““Ministers are looking at a very restricted power that might be used where it would be in the ‘interests of justice’ to lift anonymity in the case of complainants whose allegations were found to be unsubstantiated and the conviction squashed by the Court of Appeal””." When he was Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith told the House in reply to a question from myself: "““I have said that we are considering this matter. I am prepared to say that we are actively considering this matter. Subject to other ministerial colleagues, I hope that we shall still reach a decision soon””.—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. 111.]" Earlier he had said: "““As we have made clear, the Government are considering whether the law on complainant anonymity requires amendment in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in the Blackwell case””.—[Official Report, 9/1/07; col. 109.]" Later that month, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, who is in her place—I understand that she was a Home Office Minister at the time—stated: "““The rules governing complainant anonymity are set out in statute—namely, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 as amended—and primary legislation would be required to amend them””." This is primary legislation. She went on to say that, "““we are considering actively whether any amendment of the law is appropriate to take account of the remarks of the Court of Appeal in the Blackwell case””.—[Official Report, 16/1/07; col. WA 137.]" I make that one Solicitor-General, one Attorney-General who was at the time a Home Office Minister and one former Attorney-General. I support them in their endeavours. This is an opportunity and I hope that they support my amendment today. I beg to move.