---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@**bustysinclaire** wrote:
It is so sad, when people feel the need to report and bring the news of these incidents to the for before people have been charged and a verdict passed, whether they are eventually found guilt or not

---

The principle sounds good as does the suggestion that individuals in such cases should be granted anonymity.

 

The problem with surrounding cases in secrecy is the danger that justice will not be seen to be done which can lead to justice not being done.

 

In addition there have been numerous examples over the years where pre-arrest/pre-trial publicity has led to evidence coming to light that otherwise wouldn't be made known which has helped to prove guilt or innocence..

---

You don't need to surround cases in secrecy.  Normal court reporting of proceedings is fine.  But to have a media frenzy before any charges have been brought prejudices the chances of a fair trial.

Others coming forward is always a consideration in these historic cases, of course.  But either there is enough evidence to charge him now or there is not.  That should not be dependent on bolstering the case with other allegations as this could encourage spurious claims.   And, yes, I take the point that Rolf Harris was probably convicted because there was a pattern to the allegations, but really each charge should stand alone, in the same way that a defendant's previous convictions are not admissible evidence in trials.