Should these people be protected?

IT was the publication of Ulrika Jonsson's autobiography that started it all, an allegation that she had been sexually assaulted by a fellow presenter while working as a weather girl on TV-am. Her refusal to name her attacker sparked a frenzy of media speculation, and when chat show host Matthew Wright let John Leslie's name slip on live TV, it marked the beginning of ten months of "hell" for the former Blue Peter presenter.

He was attacked in headline after headline, a string of women made allegations against him in the national media and he lost his £250,000 a year job as a presenter on This Morning. From the start, Leslie maintained his innocence, but his reputation crumbled under an unrelenting barrage of coverage.

John Leslie is the latest high profile figure to be pilloried by the Press following unfounded sex allegations. TV presenter Matthew Kelly was questioned in January this year as part of an investigation in sexual abuse against boys. He was subjected to intense media scrutiny but no action was taken.

In August 2001, former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife Christine were arrested and questioned over false allegations of sexual assault made by Nadine Milroy-Sloane. Earlier this year, she was jailed for three years for perverting the course of justice, but only after her story was splashed across the front pages of national newspapers.

The Leslie case has once again opened up the debate surrounding the issue of anonymity for those accused of sex offences. Speaking yesterday, Mr Hamilton said it was time for the law to be changed.

"Anonymity is required to protect the victims of people's allegations just as it is for the people who make them," he said.

People accused of rape were entitled to full anonymity between 1976 and 1988 but the measure was repealed on the advice of judges, who argued that withdrawing anonymity from the defendant would encourage other victims of the defendant to come forward.

But whether or not the accused is in the public eye, a false allegation can have a devastating effect on their reputation and career and, earlier this month, the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee said people accused of sex attacks should remain anonymous while the allegations were investigated. Under the recommendations, newspapers and broadcasters would not have been able to name John Leslie or Matthew Kelly.

The select committee's report said: "In our view, the stigma that attaches to sexual offences, particularly those involving children, is enormous and the accusation alone can be devastating. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by acquittal."

Critics of the proposals, including the police, say they will make it harder to convict sex attackers. The Home Office yesterday ruled out granting anonymity to people accused of rape and other sex crimes but officials were examining whether their names could be kept secret until the police decide whether to press charges or not.

"We appreciate the great distress that is often experienced by those wrongly accused or charged with sexual offences after having been publicly identified," said a spokesman.

"However, the criminal justice system operates on a principle of openness which is a vital and necessary ingredient in maintaining public confidence and encouraging witnesses to come forward.

"We do not believe there is any justification for those accused of sexual offences to be singled out for special protection while other defendants, including those accused of murder, could be identified."

The Home Office is involved in discussions with police and the media industry over what can be done to strengthen guidelines about reporting the names of people being investigated, a move welcomed by Richard Mullender, lecturer in law at Newcastle University.

He says: "Justice has to be a fair account of interests, both for the accuser and the accused. Anonymity for the victim makes considerable sense considering the nature of the offence but it isn't simple enough to say the accused should also remain anonymous. I think it would make more sense to look at the Press.

"Over recent years, media practice has changed considerably. There was a time when they trod very carefully in cases where the accused was high profile, but in recent years this has given way to a strong interest in boosting sales, exploring allegations very enthusiastically in circumstances where it's not immediately obvious there is even a case to answer.

"Right from the start, there was some pretty rough, lurid stuff printed about John Leslie. The British media is one of the most invasive across the globe, publishing stories for entertainment value at the expense of justice, and I think preventing that has to be the way forward."

Yesterday, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, expressed similar views when he called for Parliament to examine whether rape defendants should be given anonymity. He refused to comment on the Leslie case but said there was a "fine balance" on the question of whether people accused of rape should be exposed to publicity.

He added: "I do believe in public trial and I do belive that defendants should be identified, as should witnesses in general, but we do have special provisions in relation to rape cases.

"At the same time, it would be wrong to have trial by media. It is the court's job to try people."

What next for John Leslie?

Until last year, John Leslie was a familiar face on British television. Following stints on Blue Peter and Wheel of Fortune, he was appointed co-host of ITV1's This Morning.

Since being sacked from the programme after bosses said he had "failed to respond" to the allegations, the 38-year-old has maintained a low public profile and it may now be difficult for him to resume his career.

Yesterday, a spokesman for This Morning ruled out a return to the show, saying there were no plans to change the line-up of Fern Britton and Phillip Schofield which had proved popular with viewers.

But Leslie can take heart from the case of Matthew Kelly, who was welcomed back by his bosses at Granada following an investigation into child abuse, and he certainly has plenty of supporters in the TV industry, including Fern Britton and Anthea Turner, who would like to see him back on screen.

He could profit financially from his ten-month ordeal and is said to have kept a video diary of his experiences.

His autobiography could earn him a seven-figure sum from publishers, while newspapers and documentary makers will be lining up to tell his story.

Friends hinted yesterday that he was considering suing his accusers for libel, although he may not be willing to take the high financial risks involved.