Trial by media as MP accused of sexual assault
An unnamed Tory MP arrested on Tuesday has been accused of sexual assault offences including rape and indecent assault, as well as abuse of a position of trust and misconduct in public office. He has been bailed pending further inquiries from the Metropolitan Police until an unspecified date in mid-June.
Many media publications have focused on the continued anonymity of the accused MP and what that means he will be able to do, often with inaccuracies, without taking into account or explaining the legal reasons for maintaining anonymity.
Tory MP’s arrest for alleged rape shows granting suspects anonymity until charged is sinister and dangerous
- If the case collapses, his privacy is theoretically protected and he emerges without a blemish: speculative commentary
- It can also help prevent identification of his alleged victim, which is essential: it is not necessarily essential, and The Sun does not go on to explain why they believe it is essential
Row grows over Tory MP suspected of rape amid pressure to name him
-
[the MP] was told to keep away from the Commons by party whips – but faces no formal sanction: this is due to the fact that his whip has not been suspended; what’s not explained is doing so would lead to the MP’s name being made public
-
It means the unidentified politician can still have meetings with constituents, vote on laws and attend parliament: while the accused MP can still hold meetings with constituents should he choose, he cannot and will not attend Parliament according to the Speaker of the House. Sir Lindsay Hole confirmed he has agreed to stay away. And a spokesperson for the whip’s office said: “The chief whip has asked that the MP concerned does not attend the Parliamentary estate while an investigation is ongoing.”
Unnamed Tory MP suspected of rape can still meet constituents
Given the severity and implication of the accusations, accurate reporting is imperative, and the media have spun into a frenzy in what can be observed as taking on the trial instead of reporting on it with diligence.
And while there has been no ‘bias’ in the conventional sense of political partiality, many outlets have so far ran stories that stoke fear and anger, and intentionally omitted covering the fundamental reasons why the MP has, to date, not been named.
- Until 2016, the Commons Speaker would have to tell the House that an MP had been arrested, immediately making the member’s identity public
- The Speaker is now no longer obliged to tell the House of a member’s arrest, and can only do so if the MP agrees
- The change was the outcome of a decision by the House of Commons Standards Committee
- The Committee concluded that the necessary disclosures in place at the time were incompatible with a person’s right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights and other sub-sects of UK Citizen privacy laws
- The decision brought the rules more in line with the same practices around naming ordinary members of the public in similar circumstances
- MPs are now only named if “parliamentary privilege or constitutional significance” is at stake
- Guidelines also set out parameters in which police will only name an arrested person if there’s an exceptional reason to do so, such as a threat to life
- In May 2020, the Court of Appeal endorsed a previous ruling by the High Court that said, “in general, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police investigation up to the point of charge”
- This should theoretically limit false accusations and incorrect journalistic publication, and publishing something that turns out to be incorrect could lead to libel action from the wrongly accused
- Nonetheless, speculation around the MPs identity continues to swirl across social media, and the call to name him continues.
It is worth remembering that it is not up to journalists to stoke accusations or prejudice during an ongoing criminal investigation, regardless of the status of the accused.
