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.
The egregious feature of the cases that collapsed in the UK was the willingness of the police and prosecution to go forward with a criminal case in the light of ample direct evidence of consent - and their willingness to subsequently extend their deliberate disregard of reality by refusing to hand over said evidence to the defense. One can understand that some people feel the pendulum may have swung too far when disculpatory evidence is deliberately not handed over to the accused's lawyers. The Rolling Stone case in the US has many of the same features although here it is building the facts to fit the case in investigative reporting rather than prosecution that is at fault.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/b...tone-frat.html
Edmund