Introducing anonymity for people accused of sexual offences would create more problems than it solved

The current system is far from perfect, but the case for anonymity for those accused of sexual offences has not been proven

Getting the balance right between the rights of the accused and those defending their reputations in cases or potential cases of sexual crimes has always been difficult. Indeed, the balance has moved around historically, and continues to be argued. It is one of the areas of justice where the arguments never seem to come to equilibrium for very long, as parliament and the judiciary adjust things along the way.

So the latest argument by the group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (Fair) has to be viewed in that perspective. Backed by Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini and organised by the son of the late Labour peer Lord Janner, the organisation has a parliamentary petition calling for people who are suspected of sexual offences to be given anonymity until they are charged unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. It needs 100,000 signatures to be considered for a debate in parliament.

No doubt the campaign will hope that this will eventually lead to a wider public debate and a change in the law. Between 1976 and 1988, by way of background, individuals accused of rape were granted anonymity, though only their accusers are today.