Reading time: four minutes

One of the key foundational aspects of our judicial system is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This is so presumed within our culture that my laptop just suggested me to write the entirety of that phrase purely after the words 'presumed innocence'. It's a fact that even people who haven't studied law for a second of their life and have never been anywhere near legal proceedings are aware of. However, over the course of our justice system being in place, has this statement ever actually been true? That question is what I'm looking to discuss today. 

Firstly, as I've often found myself doing when in the process of writing these blogs, I'd like to preface this post by making it clear that I'm not making a statement as to whether any of the people named or alluded to here are guilty or not guilty. This is also not intended to be a speculation about these people; their mention is being used purely as examples of the court of public opinion.  

Since I began thinking about writing this article, it's been revealed that BBC News presenter Huw Edwards was the unnamed BBC employee who'd been wrapped up in the scandal that none of us could escape in the media. However, it's currently unclear if what The Sun alleged (that Huw sent money to a teenager for indecent pictures) actually took place. But this lack of evidence didn't stop the newspaper from printing the claims, and also didn't stopped abuse being sent to Edwards regarding these claims which so far remain unfounded. As of yet, there haven't been any crimes proven, or evidence of criminal activity. In the eyes of the court of public opinion, however, Huw was guilty even before his name was officially mentioned by the BBC.

The intreresting thing is that it wasn't this particular case that initially inspired me to discuss this topic. I'd actually meant to begin writing this several weeks ago, discussing the situation around footballer Mason Greenwood. The more recent Huw Edwards scandal has brought this topic back into the limelight and shown why it needs addressing more than ever.

When scrolling through Twitter on the day the allegations were revealed, I saw numerous names being thrown about, as well as damning statement against these individuals with little to no proof. Gary Lineker, Jeremy Vine and Graham Norton were all names being lambasted by individuals based on pure speculation. The former two came out to state that they weren't the individual in question, but why should this be necessary? The court of public opinion had already deemed each of these three guilty, based on the facts that they knew of it being ‘a man who works for the BBC'. Presumed guilt until proven innocent is an extremely damaging action and can be potentially career or life ending. 

Caroline Flack, for example, who'd been informed she would be charged with domestic battery, took her own life following tabloid newspaper and online abuse. Another example is Michael Barrymore, who has never quite been able to escape the accusations brought against him. Mention his name to almost anyone who's heard of him, and you’ll not long be met with rumours and speculation, despite there being almost nothing to the accusations. Barrymore fortunately didn't suffer in the same way as Caroline Flack, but his career essentially ended after ITV terminated his contract following the 2001 scandal. 

I had a discussion with a judge at one of my local magistrates courts not too long ago, in which I asked if they truly believed that an individual coming into a courtroom, escorted by a guard and placed behind a plastic screen could truly be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In my experience within the courtroom, I found it very difficult to look at the people who stood behind that screen and feel entirely impartial and unbiased as to their innocence. I asked this same judge if they believed that the judicial system truly allowed for a 'fair trial', to which they stated that inherently, the justice system only prosecutes people they think are more than likely to be found guilty, and as such it's impossible to not be at all unbiased when going into a trial.  

I usually like to come up with some sort of solution when I highlight what I believe to be a flaw in the judicial system. However, for this topic I unfortunately don’t believe that there's a clear solution. Do we keep the individual’s identity secret, which causes speculation and ridicule for the innocent? Or do we name this person, leading to inevitable abuse and labelling, which in extreme cases could even lead to loss of life? To try and fix this issue would be to try and uproot the entire legal system, something which as a now third-year law student, I don’t feel like I’m exactly the perfect person to propose a fix. I could go as far back as before the invention of the Gregorian calendar to highlight this issue, so it may be worth asking: is this simply just an unsolvable problem?