Jack Gillett cleared......

[osprey]

see here:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/0 3/08/cambridge-university-student-jack-gillett -cleared-of-sexual-assault-89520-20344210/

My question is why is the woman's name kept out of it? I can understand if the accused is found guilty but in this case when the accused is innocent shouldn't the Law be changed so that the accuser be named as well?

[Kathyan]

I believe it 's right that the woman not be named before the court case, but neither should the accused until he is found guilty.

[meglet]

I understand the point you are trying to make Osprey and on the face of it it does seem unfair. But something like 6% of reported rapes ever result in conviction which, given that a rape trial far from pleasant experience for a woman to go through, I'm sure reporting a rape and the subsequent trial is something that is not entered into lightly. If the victim was not given anonymity in this way far less women would report rapes and far more men would get away with it. There may be the odd woman who reports a rape maliciously but just because a man gets off does not necessarily mean he was innocent.

[Stu Dent]

The woman was not being accused of a crime so that's why her name stayed out of it. The parity should be that the accused's name should not be disclosed until a guilty verdict is returned, not the other way around.

Of course, if the accusation was clearly malicious, the "victims" name would be made public.

This man has been cleared but that does not necessarily mean the complaint was malicious or untrue, but only that there was insufficient evidence that could enable the accusation to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very, very, high standard of proof.