What Impact Did the Case of Saward

In early March 1986, The Sun published a front page photo of Jill Saward who had come to the media’s attention after suffering a horrific rape (known as the ‘Ealing vicarage rape’) the week before. The only attempt to conceal her identity was a thick black line across her eyes, which was insufficient because she was still recognised. Ms Saward’s brother – a journalist – lodged a complaint against the newspaper to the [now defunct] Press Council. The law at that time allowed a rape victim’s identity to be published only if it would help to catch the alleged perpetrator – a loophole which The Sun used in its letter of defence.

The newspaper’s then managing editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, refused to issue an apology; claiming that publishing the photo was part of its duty to portray rape as a “sordid crime” (Media Law, 2007: p. 783). Although the Press Council condemned the action, the newspaper had not technically breached the law – only gone against codes of practice. The ensuing public outcry instigated [then] Ealing North MP Harry Greenway’s call for a change in the law. At the time of Ms Saward’s ordeal, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 (s. & 5) was insufficient to protect her identity in the face of The Sun’s ‘public interest’ claims. This had a huge influence. It indirectly produced Section 158 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that stipulates that after a rape allegation has been made, the alleged victim’s name, address or still/moving picture should not be published “if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify her as an alleged victim of such an offence” (Legislation. gov. uk). This was supplemented by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and now consolidated by the Sexual Offences Act 2000.

Currently, the law surrounding anonymity is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which introduced new sexual offences and re-defined existing ones. These resulting changes have broadened the scope of how the media is censored when writing about sexual crimes. With the fear of being fined and/or prosecuted for breaching an alleged victim’s anonymity uppermost in mind, media professionals have to be extremely mindful of the details and photographs they include in stories of sexual offences. In 2006, the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph were fined ? ,700 in total and ordered to pay ? 15,000 compensation for publishing a picture of a servicewoman who had lodged a complaint of sexual assault (Media Law, 2007: p. 500). Although she was pictured from behind, the combination of the photograph and details about her in the stories enabled those who knew her to recognise her. Another challenge for the media is avoiding ‘jigsaw identification’. This is particularly frustrating for journalists when it means that a defendant is not named to avoid revealing the alleged victim’s identity . . e. in incest cases involving minors. This can be avoided by omitting the relationship between defendant and victim, but it takes away (somewhat) from the gravity of the crime. In the wider scope of the law, there is a downside to life-time anonymity. Apart from libel cases, UK law operates on the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. So it appears hypocritical that the accused is not afforded the same anonymity until a verdict is reached, when there is a possibility that he could be innocent.

Furthermore, even if the alleged victim is proved to have made a false rape allegation, she is still afforded a degree of anonymity because, according to the 1992 Act, only the trial judge can lift the ban – even if it is in the public’s interest (McNae’s, 2009: p. 123). In October 2006 Lord Campbell-Savours used parliamentary privilege (a rarity in such cases) to reveal the identity of Shannon Taylor, who had falsely accused Warren Blackwell of rape. Mr Blackwell had been convicted and imprisoned in October 1999, then cleared in a Court of Appeal in September 2006.

He claimed that despite his conviction being overturned, his reputation was in tatters (The Sunday Times: November 19, 2006). Although the Saward v The Sun case occurred 25 years ago, the resulting change in law still presents two main issues: 1) women not being ‘named and shamed’ (as are the accused) when proven to have made false allegations, and 2) wrongly accused men having to live with the shame of being branded rapists. In an attempt to counter the latter, the coalition government in May 2010 pledged to ban the identification of rape suspects until they have been convicted.

This was scrapped following huge public opposition. However, this does not mean that future changes in law will not be made to rectify the issue. In the March 2010 review of rape and the criminal justice system, Lady Stern acknowledged that although there is a lack of statistics on false rape allegations, some reports suggest that up to 1 in 10 rape reports could be untrue. She said: “We make no recommendation on anonymity for defendants but note that it is often raised and the concerns will undoubtedly continue. ” (The Independent: May 20, 2010)

The Saward v The Sun case was hugely effective in strengthening laws to protect victims’ identities – rape is a terrible occurrence and victims should have the right to decide whether they want to be publicly named or not. However, as with all things, the repercussions stretched further than the immediate problem at the time. For the media it means increased censorship; steadily nullifying the ethos of a ‘freedom of the press’. For law makers it means finding new ways of protecting falsely accused men without downplaying the seriousness of the crime.

It is uncertain whether these issues will ever be completely solved, but what is certain is that media involvement will be a key factor in the development of anonymity law. As Jill Saward pointed out: “It’s important for them to realise the impact of their reporting, and the longer term consequences…