Originally Posted by
Airbanda
There have been a small number of high profile cases in UK where police/CPS have failed to identify or disclose evidence that casts doubt on accusation. Failure is not limited to sexual crimes though. In part that's about not looking for evidence contrary to prosecution case. Far more though it's down to system's demand for everything in paper bundles and failure to deal with sheer volume of data on a phone or PC.
The accuser has had anonymity for around forty years. There's a reasonable case to be made for extending that to the accused. There would be discretion to judge to remove it in interest of justice such as where (Savile, Clifford etc) serial offending is probable.
Are you seriously suggesting the accuser should lose her anonymity if the case collapses? Do you include a not guilty verdict as a collapse? Not guilty means the jury were not sure; it doesn't make the accuser a lying charlatan. If she is then the charge of perverting the cause of justice is appropriate.
The pendulum has not even reached half way. While the consequences of an ill founded accusation against an innocent male are ruinous the probability for those not chancing their hand is around same as that of a dual engine failure from unrelated causes.
Not guilty means not guilty; not enought evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accussed actually did what the accuser claims. Not guilty verdict does not, however, does not mean they were not sure, therefore the accused might still be guilty.