Should the accused be given anonymity?

Today all the tabloids are screaming with the acquittal of Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell on charges of rape and sexual assault. For two years he has had these allegations reported and in the last seven days the evidence of and his personal life and demons splashed across the front pages. It is anticipated that he will return to the cobbles of Weatherfield soon.

Yet on this same day the press have reported the further arrest of deputy speaker of the House of Commons Nigel Evans on sexual charges. Because of the inevitable publicity, he has already stood down from that role. His criminal liability is yet to be determined.

It raises yet again the debate which will not go to bed on whether accused individual's names should be given on their arrest, charge and trial or not unless they are convicted. It also raises the dual dichotomy- of justice to be done openly not secretly, the right of the public to know about allegations - as against the right of individuals not to face trial in the media and their reputations trawled through the mud.

In an ideal world, perhaps both victims and defendants would have anonymity given the particular stain created by rape cases that often will never wash away. But this is increasingly unrealistic in the modern age. For example, the identify of Rolf Harris in the context of similar sex abuse allegations was made public on Twitter several months before first reported in the newspapers. You cannot be anonymous in today's hyper-connected world.

Even when the might of the law is sought to seemingly guarantee anonymity with draconian super injunctions to suppress salacious press stories they invariably spectacularly backfire - need I say Ryan Giggs - again named everywhere on social media until John Hemmingway MP, sick of the consequences of secret court orders, used parliamentary privilege to publicly say that which everyone knew anyway.

As Michael Le Vell is a public figure some would argue that irrespective of any allegations his affairs and drinking could have been reported on. But it is the hushed questions by some that will never be quietened - the evidence was there today. Almost all who spoke of this story then immediately recalled the case of Craig Charles his Corrie co-star who was acquitted on sexual allegations a number of years ago.

What about the victim? Their anonymity is enshrined in law but yet again the modern social media typhoon has overtaken us. One of the other key fallouts from the Michael Le Vell trial was that a number of Twitter users have been arrested for contempt of court after naming the alleged victim.

If we cannot assure defendants anonymity in practice, whatever we might try to do in law, then perhaps we should be focusing on making sure we have a society that allows individuals who have been wrongly accused to enter back into everyday life without fear of censure or shame. We need to change wholesale the way we report on and respond to rape cases, matching the public curiosity at the accusation, arrest and charge stage with what happens later, especially how we report and respond to acquittals. Stories about acquittals tend to be smaller and rarely make the front pages.This is what needs to be tackled if we are to avoid that damaging"no smoke without fire" that can blight an innocent defendant's life forever.

One of the key arguments against defendant anonymity is of course the power of mainstream press headlines to encourage other victims and witnesses to come forward. If we could somehow be sure that the reputation of an innocent defendant could be fully restored on acquittal, perhaps the accused would have nothing to fear.