Dr Peter Moore: 'Wild West' social media threatens golden thread of legal system

As I write there is no evidence of any criminal offence and he is currently unwell in hospital. He deserves to be allowed to put his side of the story when he is better but, in the meantime, he must be given time to recover.

Nobody would support inappropriate sexual behaviour, but social media is threatening a vital part of our legal system which has been the golden thread of our legal system for 1,400 years. The dangers were highlighted by the false accusations by “Nick” against Cliff Richard, Leon Britten and other well-known people.

It has almost become a cliché to suggest that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but this is fundamental principle. The lawyer Blackstone in the 1760s wrote in his book that it is better that ten guilty people escape than that one innocent suffer.

In a trial at the Old Bailey in 1791 the barrister Sir William Garrow coined the phrase “presumed innocent until proven guilty”.

The Romans brought us another fundamental principle in English law derived from the Roman ‘Digest of Justinian’ in the 6th century. In Latin, the rule was ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’ or ‘Proof lies on him who asserts’.

The words ‘he who asserts’ was taken literally at the time. Criminal trials followed the practice of civil trials. The alleged victim would argue it out with the alleged perpetrator. And if the victim was from the gentry, an accused peasant probably had little chance.

In criminal trials today it is the state, or more accurately the crown, who is “asserting” or making the accusation and so criminal trials are X vs the crown.

All this matters. It is not pedantic but a vital part of our democracy. The traditional media, papers, radio or TV cannot simply make accusations without any evidence, although The Sun came close in their coverage of Huw Edwards.

It is also vital that everyone gets a fair trial. The jury must not start with preconceived ideas and must only base their verdict on what they hear in Court. This is why, once someone is charged in this county and is to be considered by a court, we have the rule of “sub judice” or literally “under a judge”. Once this rule applies it cannot be discussed outside the courtroom. Hopefully when the jury sits down to consider a case they have not read vitriol from any keyboard warriors.

Unfortunately, neither the ancient Romans nor Sir William Garrow in the eighteenth century anticipated social media. Although I know nothing about the accuracy of the Huw Edwards case today it is possible for one person to make a false claim and it can be around the world in seconds. This can devastate someone’s life and ruin their career, even if there is no evidence to back up the accusation. Pupils can threaten an innocent teacher with allegations of sexual assault making discipline impossible. To make the situation even worse many people online are anonymous.

There have always been false accusations. In the seventieth century they were against women, claiming they were witches and in league with the devil. Even here accusers tried to produce evidence although today the evidence of a black cat might sound dubious. Today the equivalent of the accusation of witchcraft is the accusation of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Of course, sexual assault in any form is completely unacceptable and an offence but the concept of innocent until proven guilty still applies.

The law around privacy is difficult but currently the traditional media must be careful but “on line” we have the wild west.

The Law has not kept up with the reality, but it is vital that we restore the concept to innocent until proven guilty otherwise innocent people will suffer.