HC Deb 28 June 1988 vol 136 cc204-19

'(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.

(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)— (1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—

  1. (a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his lifetime—
    2. 205
    1. (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
    2. (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales.
  2. (b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—
    1. (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
    2. (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.

(1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".

(3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".

  1. (4) In subsection (3) of that section—
    1. (a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and
    2. (b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome of".
  2. (5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—
    1. "(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter of that description.
    2. (5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace of comfort with intent to obtain the consent."
  3. (6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—
    1. "(1) For the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967' means any of the following, namely, any offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.
    2. (2) For the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if
    1. (a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or
    2. (b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or
    3. (c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or
    4. (d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence, 206 and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—
    5. 'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
    6. 'complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and
    7. 'written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an Indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".
  4. (7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc. cases)—
    1. (a) Wherever the words "a rape offence" appear in that section there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".
    2. (b) In subsection (1) of that section, after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme" and after the words "at a trial before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".
    3. (c) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".
    4. (d) In subsection (4)(a) of that section after the words "before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 65—Right of anonymity to all victims of sexual offences—

  1. `(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.,
  2. (2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)—
  1. "(1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—
    1. (a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his life time—
      1. (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
      2. (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
      • if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as an alleged victim of such an offence; and
    2. (b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—
      1. (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
      2. (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,
    • but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than 207 proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.
    1. (1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".
  2. (3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".
  3. (4) In subsection (3) of that section—
    1. (a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and
    2. (b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome or'.
  4. (5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—
    1. "(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter to that description.
    2. (5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace or comfort with intent to obtain the consent."
  5. (6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—
    1. "(1) for the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 means any of the following, namely, an offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.
    2. (2) for the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if
    1. (a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or
    2. (b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or
    3. (c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or
    4. (d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,
    • and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—
    • 'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;
    • `complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and
    • `written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".
  6. (7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—
    7. 208
    1. (a) In subsection (1) of that section after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".
    2. (b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

Amendment No. 209, in clause 150, in page 96, line 3, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

  1. (5) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—
    1. (a) In subsection (1) of that section after the word "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".
    2. (b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

Mr. Corbett

May I remind the House that I was the author of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which first provided anonymity for rape victims from the moment that an information was laid or a charge was made, and for defendants unless convicted. The House will no doubt recall that the Act was built upon a report by Mrs. Justice Heilbron.

Two issues are involved here. The first is that of how better to shield rape victims from sensation-seeking newspapers while ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial. Rape trials—or, indeed, any others—are in no way concerned with helping newspaper publishers, on the back of salacious reporting, to add to their circulations. We are concerned with the proper administration of the law.

Rape is perhaps the vilest crime that can be committed against women. That is why the 1976 Act extended extra and special protection by means of anonymity and restricting the amount of sexual mud-slinging that had undoubtedly taken place in previous rape trials. Parliament felt it right to take those steps.

I unreservedly congratulate the Government on going further with this Bill, because anonymity will now start from the moment when an allegation of rape has been made by a woman or any other person. It must be acknowledged that that gives the earliest possible protection to rape victims. It is a wide and welcome extra protection, which is needed to reassure women. The House may recall how, in 1986, the sewer Sun ran a certain obscene front-page photograph of what was alleged to be a rape victim. Unhappily, when I questioned the Attorney-General about the chances of prosecution, he told me that the way in which the 1976 Act was drawn did not legally prevent that sort of publication. That was extremely regrettable and it underlined the need, to which I am glad the Government have responded, to make the anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act come into play earlier.

We should be clear what the clause does for rape victims. It dates the protection of anonymity from the moment when a woman or any other person makes an allegation of rape. That is wholly justified, but it is a unique provision. I can think of no other circumstances in which a complainant would get such treatment before possible court proceedings. In no way do I object to that; indeed, I commend it. However, if it is right to make this important exception for women who allege rape, it must be right to extend a similar protection to the defendant man.

Twelve years ago, when the 1976 Act was being debated, what won the argument and persuaded the House was the simple proposition that both complainant woman and defendant man in a rape trial should have identical treatment before the court as far as possible. That legal exception was designed to recognise the seriousness of a rape charge for the complainant and the defendant. It was my firm belief then, and it remains so now, that a man charged with rape who is subsequently found not guilty is never wholly free of the stigma in his community, among those with whom he works or the people who are responsible for his career. That follows from the special nature of the offence.

There is a more specific and compelling reason for maintaining anonymity for the defendant unless he is convicted. It has more to do with the victim than with the defendant. A major survey in Woman's Own in 1986, in which 25,000 women took part, showed that 55 per cent. of all rape victims knew their attacker. Most rapists were shown to be boy friends or former husbands or someone known to the woman. I ask the House and the Minister to reflect on those figures. One third of all rapes took place in the victim's home. Even in the one in eight rapes in which the attacker was unknown, the incident took place in the woman's home.

These figures provide a warning. If the rape victim knows her attacker in most cases, so do many other people. Enabling the defendant to be named will, in most cases, almost automatically indentify the rape victim, which in turn will undo the extra protection that the Bill seeks to give victims.

4.15 pm

It is sometimes argued that anonymity for the man suspected of rape can get in the way of police trying to find a suspect who is also wanted in connection with other serious criminal offences. That claim is nonsense. I acknowledge that in some circumstances—for example, the horrific M50 murder hunt—the use of indentikit drawings or photographs can help in tracing a suspect, but if that needs to be done the police can say that the man they are looking for is wanted in connection with serious criminal offences—without detailing them. In passing, I am a mite surprised that there has been no argument before the courts, in cases in which these "wanted" posters have been issued, by defence counsel contesting that matters of identification have been prejudged by the publication of drawings or photographs to such an extent that it is difficult for the client to get a fair trial.

There is not the slightest evidence—although there may be hearsay—that the provisions of the 1976 Act in respect of defendant men have in any way inhibited the police. So I do not believe the case is made. As I have said, the main argument for retaining this matching anonymity is to protect that of the victim. More than 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker. Those figures from Woman's Own tell us more than any single opinion.

The House must not risk putting rape victims in the real danger of being accidentally indentified through the naming of defendant men. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government's proposal to remove anonymity for the defendant man will run the risk, if no more than that, of harming the victim and of perhaps deterring even more women from reporting rape to the police. The Woman's Own survey showed that three out of every four women keep quiet about rape because they feel they will not be believed. If the Government's proposal becomes law, it will force even more women to keep quiet, which in turn will mean even more rapists walking free to strike again, when they should be behind bars.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

All hon. Members are united in abhorrence of the offence of rape. Almost all will sympathise with the sentiments behind the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, I hope that on reflection he will consider that there are a number of pitfalls in what he proposes.

For the reasons that the hon. Member for Erdington outlined, there have, over a period, been good causes for Parliament and the courts seeking to protect victims in rape offences. History has shown that the vicitims of rape have often felt afraid that, however, innocent they are and however much they are the violated party, there is always the danger of a stigma attaching to them if they are dragged into the courts. That is why Parliament has properly given them anonymity from the moment when they make a complaint. However, it would be dangerous to make the logical jump and give anonymity to the defendant, for the following reasons.

We have an open system of justice, in which magistrates courts must decide whether there is a prima facie case against a defendant. As soon as the courts have found that there is, the defendant is named and the fact is promulgated that the defendant will be tried by a magistrates court or, in the case of rape, committed for Crown court trial. That is a public and open system of justice, in which everyone knows what is happening.

Inevitably, in a system of justice in which some people are found not guilty after trial, they may well consider that their names have been besmirched for ever more. That price must be paid in any system of justice, however hard one tries to perfect it. There is always a danger that a wholly innocent party may be brought before the courts and found not gulity, but his reputation may suffer irreparably ever after. But the reputations of the middle-aged woman who is accused of shoplifting or the company director who is accused of tax evasion are just as much at risk as the reputation of the man accused of rape.

The hon. Member for Erdington said that many rape victims know their attackers, and that therefore they should be given added protection. The same argument could be made in many murder cases. Many murders occur in the home, often as a result of grievous bodily harm going wrong. Does one then say that those who are accused of murder should be granted anonymity? If we did that, we should be moving from an open system of justice to a system full of exceptions and caveats.

Throughout this century we have had a public system of justice, with good checks and balances between the complainant and the defendant. The system works. 'The only exception to that should be, for the reasons stated, that complainants in rape cases should receive anonymity. But there is no need to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. To do so would he to set a dangerous precedent that could lead to many other ramifications in our system of criminal justice. All we need to ensure is similar treatment for every defendant. We must ensure that every defendant in every court case is treated the same, and we should not make exceptions for some defendants that are not available to others.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

This matter was fully debated in Committee, and in the intervening months I have thought deeply about it. I remain convinced that it is right to make an exception in the case of defendants in rape cases.

In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made powerful speeches about the consequences to defendants of allegations that are made against them. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of the mother of an accused person whose life was destroyed by the accusation, and the hon. Member for Thanet, South told us about a suicide that occurred after a false allegation of rape.

I was pleased to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) today. He made a point that I made in Committee, although I did not have the information to substantiate it at the time. As the Woman's Own survey showed, there is little point in protecting the victim of the alleged rape if the name of the accused is published. That survey showed that 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attackers. In smaller communities especially, to name the accused would be to name the victim.

Some hon. Members have said that the new clause goes down a dangerous road, and in Committee the Minister said that if we gave anonymity to defendants in rape cases we would have to consider doing the same in other cases. But we should examine the extension of anonymity to all defendants. I accept the point about our open system of justice, but the primary rule is that one is innocent until proven guilty. We should take account of the fact that people who have been publicly accused of offences never shake off that accusation. It is not true to say that a company director accused of fraud or a middle-aged women accused of shoplifting need the same protection as a rape victim. No one could regard those offences as being similar to rape. A powerful case has been made for saying that rape carries a unique stigma and that we must protect the victims of that offence. But if the stigma exists for the victim, it also exists for the alleged perpetrator, and that is why I support the new clause.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

I oppose the new clause. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who has defended and prosecuted people charged with rape. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the openness of justice. It is an important point that we must consider. Once we start to protect the identity of some accused people, we are in danger of extending it to others. There is no sound reason why a man accused of rape should have the protection of anonymity while those who are accused of robbery, murder, manslaughter or causing death by reckless driving do not enjoy that protection. Once we open the door, we shall have opened the floodgates to a series of extensions of the rule, which would not be in the interests of open justice.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. As he knows, normally I would give way to him.

Some hon. Members have suggested that the stigma of being accused of rape is carried by the defendant for the rest of his life. Of course it is, but whatever the type of offence, the stigma is carried by people accused in every criminal case. There are more serious offences than rape.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

It takes a man to say that.

Mr. Hind

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but there are cases of murder, robbery and the most atrocious acts of violence. I accept that rape is terrible, but I do not understand why the man accused of rape should have his identity concealed by the courts.

Hon. Members said that it is a terrible thing for relatives. From my experience, I know that the most difficult thing for a man charged with a sexual offence or any other serious offence is to tell his mother or wife about it. That is the hardest audience with which he must deal. It is easier to tell one's counsel or admit it in court than to confess to one's loved ones.

Over five years ago, I represented a 17-year-old charged with the attempted rape of an 81-year-old woman. I advised him that, on the evidence, he had no choice but to plead guilty. He said to me, "The difficult thing is to tell his mother." I brought his mother into the cell, he told her that he was guilty and he went into court and pleaded guilty. I saw his mother two years later, following her son's release, and she insisted on disbelieving that her son could have committed such an offence. The relatives of an accused person are in a unique position. Many do not want to believe that their loved ones have been involved in offences, and that applies to every type of offence.

4.30 pm

The general public will stand behind Conservative Members in opposing the new clause because they think it right that the identity of the accused should be brought to their notice.

Rape is not a sexual offence. That mistake is made over and over again. It is not purely sexually motivated. Its root is to dominate the woman, and it is more connected with violence. It is a most horrible offence, but often the main motivation is to dominate or possess a woman. The sexual attack is a side issue; the main issue is physical aggression and domination. As the defendant's identity is put before the public in similar horrible offences, I do not understand why defendants should be protected in rape cases.

I fully endorse the point that was made in Committee about protecting victims. For many years I have fought to ensure that victims are protected, and I am glad to note that provisions relating to that are in the Bill. I advise Opposition Members to turn the clock back to when defendants were protected and were anonymous and consider the reasons why the law was changed to remove that anonymity. Those reasons are as valid today as they were then.

Mr. Bermingham

I did not intend to speak to the new clause until the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) failed to give way to me.

The hon. Member has not read the new clause. He has avoided the central issue of the problem, which, to a large extent, lies with the sensationalising by the press of any major crime.

Mr. Hind

indicated assent.

Mr. Bermingham

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. Even before charge, details are given of the person detained in custody. Details of the offence are given, and the press is awash with the gory details of the allegation. I often wonder how the accused in such sensational cases receives a fair trial.

Rape is a bestial crime if ever there was one. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that it has no sexual basis; it is well proven that it has. What will happen in rape cases? Often they are the most sensational and give rise to front-page headlines. What will happen to the families of an accused who is subsequently acquitted? All the damage will have been done.

Many rapes occur between family or friends—between people who know each other. By naming the defendant before the trial, one effectively names the victim, thus defeating the object of the exercise.

Sometimes, cant and dogma take over our law. I beg the Minister to think back to what was said in Committee. Over the past few days there have been several sensational cases, unconnected with rape, in which people have been named before charge as being detained. Until we find some way of protecting people accused of serious criminal offences before trial, we must keep what few shields we have left. The new clause is designed to strengthen those shields until the time comes when nobody is named before charge—at which time the screens come down on reporting restrictions—so that everybody receives a trial by court and evidence, not by newspaper and innuendo.

Mr. John Patten

This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the way in which he introduced the new clause.

Anonymity for rape victims is widely supported. Clause 150 rightly extends the anonymity given to rape victims to the point at which an allegation is made rather than when a man is charged. The hon. Member for Erdington was good enough to say that that is a good move. It has received all-party support and is a matter of bipartisan consent. The question whether a defendant should be granted anonymity should be considered in isolation. Although hon. Members may not entirely agree, this is a matter not of party politics but of judgment.

Why are victims in rape cases granted anonymity? The Heilbron committee, which reported in 1985, found that the public knowledge of rape was a severe deterrent, leading victims not to report offences. The hon. Member for Erdington gave the full history of that Committee's deliberations and how they led to his private Member's Bill—the hon. Gentleman has achieved more than I ever have in the House—so it would be otiose to repeat the detail he gave.

The key question is, why should suspected rapists but not other suspected criminals enjoy anonymity? Hon. Members have addressed themselves entirely to that point. Judgments have been made on either side of the argument. Surely those accused of murder are under the same pressure as those accused of rape. Murder is the most terrible of all crimes, and those accused of murder are subject to acute public scrutiny, yet I have never heard an hon. Member suggest that suspected murderers should not be named.

Mr. Bermingham

In the case of a suspected murderer, the victim's identity is known, so no further harm can be done to the victim. That distinguishes it from a rape case, in which the object is to keep the victim's identity secret so that society can attempt to protect and cosset her.

Mr. Patten

We are not doing anything that would reveal the alleged victim's identity. It may be that the murder victim's name is indeed known. Not everyone, however, accused of murder is found guilty. Those who are found not guilty can suffer the most terrible damage because of the old argument that there is no smoke without fire.

The 15th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was published in 1984, says: Rape is but one of many offences where a defendant who is acquitted may nevertheless suffer damage to his reputation. That must be true. It is not applicable only to sexual offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put is finger on the problem when he said that a business man or a company director who was wrongly accused of fraud, or a vicar wrongly accused of shoplifting, could be in much the same difficulty.

The hon. Member for Erdington says that the difference in a rape case is that the victim is not named—that point was also made by the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South (Mr. Bermingham)—so she can make her accusation with impunity. But we must remember that victims are not named in other areas of the criminal law. The victim of blackmail is not named. Such people are treated specially. The same applies to child victims—the subject of a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on the previous occasion that we considered the Bill on Report. But alleged blackmailers and alleged offenders against children do not benefit from anonymity. Their names are known. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was right in the point that he made about that.

Let me set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Erdington. He feared that, should the identification of an assailant become law, that could often lead to the identification of the victim. That is not so. If he looks at clause 150, he will see that it prohibits the publication of any information that is likely to lead to the identification of the victim. Therefore, no newspaper could name the alleged assailant and say that he was the victim's boy friend or next-door neighbour, because that would indirectly identify the victim.

The terms of the new clause illustrate the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line if we once cease to regard rape as unique for these purposes. The new clauses would include all offences under the Sexual Offences Acts of 1956 and 1967, and that would bring specifically into the provision not only offences for which we have all recognised that a good case could be made, even if we did not agree across the Floor of the House about it— for example, indecent assault—but others for which anonymity provisions, especially for the defendant, seem to be highly inappropriate, to put it mildly. For example, that would include those people accused of letting premises for a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, controlling a prostitute, solicitation by a man, homosexual acts in public, and so on. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would really want to include all those potential offences. I would not wish to do so.

There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, encouraging victims to report offences and relieving them of their ordeal as much as possible, and, on the other hand, what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred to as the principle of open justice.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Erdington. He played a major role in the 1976 legislation, and we should all listen carefully to what he has to say. The case for imposing reporting restrictions for the benefit of rape victims is overwhelming, but in giving protection against the interests of open justice, I find the balance tipping in the other direction.

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mt. Corbett), not for the first time, is seeking to achieve, but there is another practical argument that the Minister might have adduced. Where some horrendous offence has taken place, whether rape or any other, the police are required to search for the potential assailant. To do so they must give wide publicity. I wish to make no comment on matters that may be coming before the courts shortly, but the House will know that identikit pictures need to be made widely available. They will identify. To that extent, it is impracticable to refuse to identify the potential accused.

4.45 pm
Mr. Patten

My hon. Friend is right. We must do nothing that inhibits the work of the police in tracking down alleged rapists and bringing them to whatever justice the courts bring to bear on them.

I am sorry to part company with the hon. Member for Erdington but, on a matter of judgment, not on a partisan matter or a party political matter, I simply do not agree with him, and I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clauses.

Mr. Corbett

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this, although he clearly arrives at a different conclusion, on what I accept is a matter of judgment. The Minister and the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) tried to liken a defendant in a rape trial to a defendant in a manslaughter or a murder trial or to a defendant in a case of causing death by reckless driving. It is a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but I repeat that in each of those instances the victim is dead, known and usually named. Therefore, that comparison does not stand up.

I disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) shouted across to him that one of his remarks could only have been made by a man. We should treat that comment with the deepest respect, because as much as we as men try to imagine how rape victims feel, we cannot do so because we are not women. We can imagine it, but I am trying to establish the case that the House should recognise that for a woman rape is a vile offence, the consequences of which last many women throughout the rest of their lives. Indeed, I know a woman who was raped 40 or 50 years ago, but was prevented from reporting it, who still bears the marks of that assault. I am sure that she is by no means alone in that.

Two hon. Members have made the general point that it would be wrong for defendants to have such protection from the courts. Under the present legislation, defendants do not have that protection from the courts, if that is the way to look at it, because where a man is charged with rape and found guilty he is named. But we are not talking about protecting defendants from the courts; as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, we are talking about protecting defendants from trial by radio, newspaper and television. No more is that true than in rape trials, when salaciousness is played up in a bid to sell extra copies of newspapers.

I say again that that has nothing to do with the administration of justice or with helping the sales of newspapers. Indeed, one of the complaints that I have made, as a former pencil journalist, is that the coverage of our courts by the press is now so random that any claim that it once had to represent the public in order that justice could be seen to be done has long since gone out of the window. We know that from shoplifting cases. Only someone who is famous or married to someone famous will be reported. Therefore, the press does not have a leg to stand on.

I understand what the Minister is saying. Yes, defendants in rape cases are being treated differently. I have tried to persuade the House why they should be treated differently. Whether or not newspapers can, through the naming of the defendant, name the victim—some would be pushed to do so—is not really the point. The point is that, if 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker, as the Woman's Own survey showed, within the small communities in streets, towns and villages, around pubs and clubs and in the work place, if the defendant is named, that will automatically undo the extra protection that the Bill rightly offers to rape victims. None of us can want that.

I do not want to rehearse the arguments, because all hon. Members will be familiar with them, but one of the purposes of both provisions of the 1976 Act was to ensure anonymity for the victim and reduce the amount of sexual mud-slinging that went on in cross-examination because it was discovered that the woman had had an illegitimate child. One hon. Member said in as many words at one stage that a woman like that could not be raped.

Uniquely in rape cases—I think that this has to be and is sustainable—it is the complainant woman who feels very much on trial. Very often, because of the nature of the offence, it is a one-to-one thing; in essence, it is the woman's word against that of the man. That was why it was so important to try to narrow and limit the scope of the questions that could be asked about previous sexual experience, for example.

At the very least, there is a risk that, through naming the defendant, it will be easier for people to identify the complainant rape victim. It must be so, on the basis of the Woman's Own survey. I hope it is not so, but the effect of that will deter even more women from going to the police and making allegations of rape. That is going in completely the opposite direction from the extra protections which the Government and the Committee have written into the Bill for the victim.

I am sorry that this has to become a matter for the Division Lobbies, but we shall pursue it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House proceeded to a Division:

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Hon. Members may like to know that there is doubt about the functioning of the digital clock, which I believe has been wrong by about two minutes. Therefore, the Division doors will be open for another two minutes.

The House having divided: Ayes 150, Noes 274.

Division No. 385] [4.51 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Alton, David Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Anderson, Donald Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Janner, Greville
Armstrong, Hilary John, Brynmor
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Ashton, Joe Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Kennedy, Charles
Battle, John Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Bell, Stuart Leadbitter, Ted
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Leighton, Ron
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Bermingham, Gerald Lewis, Terry
Bidwell, Sydney Livingstone, Ken
Blair, Tony Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Blunkett, David Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Boateng. Paul Loyden, Eddie
Boyes, Roland McAllion, John
Bradley, Keith McAvoy, Thomas
Bray, Dr Jeremy Macdonald, Calum A.
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) McKelvey, William
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) McTaggart, Bob
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) McWilliam, John
Buchan, Norman Madden, Max
Caborn, Richard Mahon, Mrs Alice
Callaghan, Jim Meacher, Michael
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Meale, Alan
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Canavan, Dennis Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Cartwright, John Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Morgan, Rhodri
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Morley, Elliott
Clay, Bob Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Clelland, David Mullin, Chris
Cohen, Harry Murphy, Paul
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Nellist, Dave
Corbett, Robin Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cryer, Bob Patchett, Terry
Cunliffe, Lawrence Pendry, Tom
Dalyell, Tam Pike, Peter L.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Dixon, Don Quin, Ms Joyce
Dobson, Frank Reid, Dr John
Doran, Frank Richardson, Jo
Dunnachie, Jimmy Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Rogers, Allan
Eastham, Ken Rooker, Jeff
Evans, John (St Helens N) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Rowlands, Ted
Fatchett, Derek Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Fearn, Ronald Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Short, Clare
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Skinner, Dennis
Fisher, Mark Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Flannery. Martin Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Spearing, Nigel
Foster, Derek Steel, Rt Hon David
Foulkes, George Steinberg, Gerry
Fyfe, Maria Strang, Gavin
Galloway, George Straw, Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Godman, Dr Norman A. Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Golding, Mrs Llin Turner, Dennis
Gould, Bryan Vaz, Keith
Graham, Thomas Wall, Pat
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Wallace, James
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Wigley, Dafydd
Grocott, Bruce Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Haynes, Frank Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Heffer, Eric S. Wilson, Brian
Henderson, Doug Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hinchliffe, David Worthington, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Tellers for the Ayes:
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) Mr. Frank Cook and
Howells, Geraint Mr. Robert N. Wareing.
NOES
Adley, Robert Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Alexander, Richard Forth, Eric
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Allason, Rupert Franks, Cecil
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Freeman, Roger
Amess, David French, Douglas
Arbuthnot, James Gardiner, George
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Gill, Christopher
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Ashby, David Goodlad, Alastair
Aspinwall, Jack Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Atkins, Robert Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Gorst, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Gow, Ian
Baldry, Tony Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Batiste, Spencer Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Beggs, Roy Gregory, Conal
Bendall, Vivian Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Grist, Ian
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Grylls, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Body, Sir Richard Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Hampson, Dr Keith
Boswell, Tim Hanley, Jeremy
Bottomley, Peter Hannam,John
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Bowis, John Harris, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Haselhurst, Alan
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Hayes, Jerry
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hayward, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Heathcoat-Amory, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Heddle, John
Browne, John (Winchester) Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick Hind, Kenneth
Buck, Sir Antony Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Budgen, Nicholas Holt, Richard
Burns, Simon Hordern, Sir Peter
Burt, Alistair Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Butcher, John Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Butler, Chris Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Butterfill, John Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hunter, Andrew
Carrington, Matthew Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Carttiss, Michael Irvine, Michael
Cash, William Irving, Charles
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Jack, Michael
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Janman, Tim
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Colvin, Michael Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Conway, Derek Key, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Kilfedder, James
Cope, Rt Hon John King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Couchman, James Kirkhope, Timothy
Cran, James Knapman, Roger
Critchley, Julian Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Curry, David Knowles, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Knox, David
Davis, David (Boothferry) Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Day, Stephen Lang, Ian
Devlin, Tim Lawrence, Ivan
Dicks, Terry Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Dorrell, Stephen Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Dover, Den Lightbown, David
Dunn, Bob Lilley, Peter
Durant, Tony Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Dykes, Hugh Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Eggar, Tim Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Evennett, David McCrindle, Robert
Fallon, Michael Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Favell, Tony MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Maclean, David
Fookes, Miss Janet McLoughlin, Patrick
Forman, Nigel McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Shersby, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John Sims, Roger
Malins, Humfrey Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mans, Keith Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Maples, John Soames, Hon Nicholas
Marland, Paul Speller, Tony
Marlow, Tony Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Squire, Robin
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stanbrook, Ivor
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Steen, Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis Stern, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stevens, Lewis
Mellor, David Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Miller, Sir Hal Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Mills. Iain Stokes, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Sumberg, David
Moore, Rt Hon John Summerson, Hugo
Morrison, Sir Charles Tapsell, Sir Peter
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Moss, Malcolm Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Neale, Gerrard Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Nelson, Anthony Temple-Morris, Peter
Neubert, Michael Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Thorne, Neil
Nicholls, Patrick Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Thurnham, Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Oppenheim, Phillip Tracey, Richard
Page, Richard Tredinnick, David
Paice, James Trippier, David
Patnick, Irvine Twinn, Dr Ian
Patten, John (Oxford W) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Waddington, Rt Hon David
Pawsey, James Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Waldegrave, Hon William
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Walden, George
Porter, David (Waveney) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Portillo, Michael Waller, Gary
Powell, William (Corby) Walters, Sir Dennis
Price, Sir David Ward, John
Raffan, Keith Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Warren, Kenneth
Redwood, John Watts, John
Rhodes James, Robert Wells, Bowen
Riddick, Graham Wheeler, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Whitney, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Widdecombe, Ann
Roe, Mrs Marion Wiggin, Jerry
Rowe, Andrew Wilshire, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Winterton, Mrs Ann
Ryder, Richard Wolfson, Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom Wood, Timothy
Sainsbury, Hon Tim Woodcock, Mike
Sayeed, Jonathan Young, Sir George (Acton)
Scott, Nicholas Younger, Rt Hon George
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Tellers for the Noes:
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to