The Russell Model case reveals the hazards of trial by media

The investigation into allegations of rape, sexual assault and abuse by Russell Model, carried out by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme and The Sunday Instances, ought to be taken very critically.

The complaints raised by the investigation are credible. One complainant’s detailed account of a rape was recorded by a rape-crisis centre in Los Angeles on the identical day that the incident is alleged to have taken place. One other complainant was a 16-year-old woman from the UK. She claims Model pressured his penis down her throat. The investigation has confirmed that Model and the woman have been in a relationship when Model was 30 and he or she was 16. This doesn’t corroborate oral rape – which is what ‘forcing’ somebody to provide oral intercourse quantities to – but it surely does make the grievance extra credible. There’s extra to those allegations than only one particular person’s phrase in opposition to one other.

This has prompted loads of dialogue concerning the risks of ‘trial by media’. Some are arguing that Model is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that we should always not kind a judgement about him till his case is examined in a court docket of legislation. Others say that the presumption of innocence is merely a legal principle, which shouldn’t be broadened into our on a regular basis lives. These identical individuals appear fully relaxed about Model being declared responsible within the court docket of public opinion, and have celebrated the truth that investigative journalism could make up for deficiencies within the justice system.

Formally, the ‘presumption of innocence’ does solely apply within the courtroom, when a person is confronted with the facility of the state. However, the hazards of dashing to judgement in any case like this are nonetheless very actual. Nobody ought to be summarily punished based mostly on allegation alone. After all, individuals will kind private judgements about others based mostly on what they hear and browse. However this turns into much more harmful when social penalties observe from these judgements.

Because it stands, Model’s present tour has now been postponed, and all materials that includes him has been faraway from the Channel 4 web site (besides the Dispatches programme). He’s already being punished on the premise of the abuse allegations.

But, as now we have seen in a number of latest instances, apparently credible allegations can crumble on correct consideration of the proof. Think about the acquittal of Kevin Spacey this yr, or the exoneration of Harvey Proctor in 2016. In each instances, the harm was completed from the second the allegations have been made. Spacey misplaced his profession following these accusations of sexual assault. And Proctor confronted years of uncertainty earlier than being cleared of kid sexual abuse.

That is why the ‘presumption of innocence’ is helpful as a wider ethical precept, even outdoors the courtroom. As a rule, we should always imagine the very best of individuals except the alternative is correctly established. It has solely been a matter of days for the reason that Russell Model documentary aired. We should always deal with it as a well-sourced and compelling piece of journalism. However we can’t deal with it as the ultimate phrase on his guilt or innocence.

That is much more vital once we think about that additional allegations should come to mild. As I write, the Metropolitan Police have introduced that further allegations have been made in opposition to Model over the weekend, following the airing of the documentary. There’s clearly a hazard that false or malicious allegations will probably be made on the energy of the media response to the investigation. There’s additionally a danger that any true allegations made within the coming days and weeks will probably be tainted by their affiliation with the media frenzy. It’s important that we deal with these allegations rationally – neither blindly believing them nor dismissing them out of hand. That is the one solution to get on the fact.

We are going to all make non-public judgements about individuals within the public eye. That doesn’t imply that the media can take the place of a decide, jury and executioner. The risks of trial by media ought to by no means be underestimated.

Luke Gittos is a spiked columnist and writer. His most up-to-date ebook is Human Rights – Illusory Freedom: Why We Ought to Repeal the Human Rights Act, which is printed by Zero Books. Order it right here.