THE dismissal of the charges against John Leslie has re-opened the debate surrounding the naming of defendants charged with rape and sex offences.

The cases for and against anonymity have merit. The Lord Chief Justice is right to say the issue is finely balanced.

However, the notion of anonymity does not fit comfortably into a legal system which depends on openness to retain credibility and public confidence.

Why should someone accused of rape or indecent assault not be named, when someone accused of murder is named?

This was the contradiction which existed between 1976 and 1988, when people accused of rape were entitled to full anonymity.

The law was reformed on the advice of judges. They argued that the withdrawal of anonymity helped other victims come forward. That argument still holds sway.

What prompts the debate over allegations of rape and indecent assault is that they are far easier to fabricate than other serious crimes. When they are fabricated, it seems unjust that the anonymity enjoyed by the false accuser is not shared by the falsely accused.

But for all its imperfections, the present procedures are perhaps the most satisfactory.

The John Leslie case has also prompted a debate on the role of the media where public figures are accused of offences of indecency.

Some sections of the media do have to question their behaviour in this regard.

In its reporting, the media must always have the highest regard for the fundamental principle of British justice, that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Recently, the Home Affairs Select Committee said people accused of sex attacks should remain anonymous during police investigations and only be named if and when charges were made.

There is some merit in these proposals, and the media is well advised to enter into discussions about them.

Self-regulation will be a more palatable option than having draconian laws forced upon them by an Act of Parliament.