A lively debate on radio and in the national newspapers has been sparked by a leading barrister's suggestion that people accused of serious sexual offences should be granted anonymity until they have been proven guilty. Deputy editor STUART NUTTALL takes a look at the arguments in the wake of our coverage of the trial and conviction of Phillip Walton for a series of child sex offences in the South Hams...
Suspects in sex cases should have their identities protected until they are convicted, says Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales. She wants the change because sexual allegations carry 'such a stigma'.
Speaking on Radio 5 Live on Saturday, in the wake of highly-publicised rape and sex abuse charges being laid against Michael Le Vell, the actor who plays Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, she said: 'Until they have been proven to have done something as awful as this, I think there is a strong argument in cases of this sort – because they carry such stigma with them – to maintain the defendant's anonymity.
'But once the defendant is convicted then of course everything should be open to scrutiny and to the public.'
There are some readers of this newspaper who would agree with her, especially during the first and second weeks of our coverage of the trial of South Hams paedophile Phillip Walton, who was last week jailed for 18 years for the sexual abuse of four young girls.
In one letter to this newspaper, a correspondent wrote: '...the headline on your February 1 edition has brought to a head a concern which I have felt for quite some time.
'It related to the disclosure of personal details of anyone who is accused but not yet found guilty of serious sexual offences. As you know, in such cases the identities of the victims remain anonymous, quite correctly.
'However, the identity of the accused, although not yet found guilty, is spread of across many different media.
'In the event that person is then found not guilty of the offences of which he or she may be accused, the damage that has been done to that person's reputation, particularly in cases of alleged sexual offences, is irreparable.
'Should a person accused and found guilty of such offences be exposed? Yes, of course.
'In other cases, for example where a doctor or a teacher has been accused of an offence of misconduct, similar protection should apply.
'I believe that such disclosure, when applied by the legal system and reflected in the media with regard to those accused of serious sexual offences, is grossly unfair.
'In the instance to which I refer, the unfairness may appear exacerbated by the large colour photograph of the accused man which appeared on the front page.
'It is my intention to pursue this with those responsible for legislation and its application in the hope that we may somehow make the system a little fairer.'
A second correspondent wrote: 'The sexual abuse of children is a terrible scourge of our society and something to be deplored.
'Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I must take issue with the front page of February 1, which owed more to a redneck rag from the 19th century Mississipi than a respected local newspaper.
'Under the law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty and so it was with the man charged in the particular case.
'To publish a photograph was probably unwise but to splash his face all over the front page was a step too far and I wonder what his counsel made of it as the trial proceeded.
'By all means report on a case but do not virtually condemn a man before he has had the opportunity to deliver his defence.'
And Terry Harrison, who was falsely accused of rape five years ago, told the BBC: 'I contemplated taking my own life on a couple of occasions, I was on the Middlesbrough bridge, I couldn't believe what was happening.
'If a person has done such a heinous crime then they should be named and shamed, I agree – but not until they have been done for it.
'I was guilty until I was proven innocent and even when I was proven innocent I'm still getting judged.'
However, speaking to the Telegraph, John Cooper QC, a top criminal defence barrister who is also a member of the bar council, warned the move would lead to even fewer victims of sex attacks coming forward and Ms McGowan's view was both 'surprising' and 'wrong'.
He said: 'If this was brought in, fewer people who are potential complainants will come forward.
'I can't understand why she's singling out one particular, however serious, allegation of crime.
'If she's being consistent, why not have it for other serious crime, like child murder for instance, there's nothing worse than that, or indeed less serious offences where for instance you could have a bank manager being accused of shoplifting, that could be very damaging.'
Mr Copper added: 'If that doctor's name is put out as a man who's been charged with an offence, then you may – I've had it in my experience – have other patients come forward saying, "that's happened to me as well".
'Then there can be a trial of all the issues, so the jury aren't misled into thinking it's a one-off.'
And Jill Saward, a campaigner for victims' rights and a rape victim herself, told the BBC: 'When you have anonymity for a rapist or potential rapist, you protect him, you make him what people believe to be a safe person to be with.'
Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, told the Telegraph it was 'deeply disappointing that a respected organisation like the bar council is proposing myth-driven policies such as this'.
She added: 'Such a suggestion is often based upon the strongly held, but inaccurate, belief that there are a large number of false allegations in rape cases, when this is simply not the case.
'Quite the reverse – rape victims are very reluctant to come forward and report fearing that they won't be believed.'
The Ministry of Justice scrapped plans to grant anonymity to rape defendants in November 2010, citing a lack of clear evidence to justify the move, despite it being included in the coalition agreement.
Ministers had earlier said the change would protect men, and women, from false allegations.
In a debate about the proposal, South Hams MP Dr Sarah Wollaston spoke from her experience as a former forensic medical examiner for Devon and Cornwall police.
She said: 'I completely understand the many arguments made in favour of protecting the innocent who are subject to false allegations, but we need to remember that the odds are heavily stacked in their favour.
'For every 100 women I saw – I believed the vast majority of them – I can count on the fingers of one hand the number who had their day in court and saw a conviction.
'We need to be clear that the scales are already tipped in favour of the defendant in a rape case.
'We need to be very careful that we do not add a further barrier to women coming forward and making allegations.'
She explained: 'Many of them told me that the reason they were going through what is, quite frankly, a very unpleasant examination after a horrendous experience was not for themselves, but because they believed that it would protect other women.
'I ask the minister to consider why those women would report a rape if they thought that there was no possibility that other women might benefit.'
Reporting of all criminal cases is governed by strict laws.
The law for cases involving sexual abuse is even stricter, with severe penalties for identifying the accusers, and we are very grateful for the expert advice of Sue Oake, senior legal adviser at the Newspaper Society, who helped ensure that everything we published was within the law.
It is part of our unwritten constitution that 'not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done'.
Our courts are open to members of the public and the press. In all but some cases which could involve a serious threat to national security, we don't have secret courts or a secret justice system – we are not Stalinist Russia, where people were picked up off the streets by the police only to reappear, or not, after several years in a Siberian prison with few knowing what had happened to them in the meantime.
So it was that on Wednesday evening, February 4, our Dartmouth-based reporter Steve Peacock filed his first report from the Walton trial at Plymouth Crown Court. He was the only journalist there – as Steve was throughout the trial until the final few days when I took over from him as he went on holiday.
There were no representatives from TV news channels, no radio stations, no other newspapers – all of which have greater resources than we have at South Hams Newspapers.
The case was important to us to cover for several reasons. Aside from the 'justice must also be seen to done' angle, we had already published, during the protracted process of bringing the case to trial, that Walton had been charged with a series of serious sexual offences; he was well known in the Dartmouth and Kingsbridge areas; and we were aware of gossip, speculation and rumour surrounding the case. It would have been unfair to him and his victims if we were to ignore the case, or publish a week or so after the trial the outcome in a few paragraphs.
So, back to that first day of his trial. Our news deadline is first thing on a Thursday morning. In common with most newspapers in the Westcountry, we are printed at Didcot, near Oxford.
On Wednesday, we had a clear front page waiting for copy from Steve who was in court where mobile phones are banned and there are no internet or other communication facilities available to journalists.
We did not know what to expect. Walton could have changed his pleas to guilty; the case could have been adjourned; it could have been thrown out.
As it was, the trial began and details of the allegations were explained to the court by the prosecution barrister. All we had was the outline of the case against Walton, no defence arguments had been put to the jury, other than his denials, at that stage.
To have juxtaposed this story against one of our more usual front page pictures – smiling children or similar – would have been incongruous, so we chose to use a picture of him.
The following week, the prosecution case continued until the court was adjourned on Wednesday afternoon, so again we had little of the defence case, save the cross-examination of witnesses by Walton's barrister.
The defence started on the Thursday and continued on the Friday – too late for that week's paper. So we put the updates on our website, anticipating – correctly as it turned out – that we would have the verdicts in time for last week's paper.