Last reviewed: Next review due:
13 min readThe Section 1 SOAA 1992 anonymity rule
Section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 creates an automatic, lifelong anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases. No court order is required — the restriction arises by operation of law the moment an allegation of a relevant offence is made. It is a criminal offence to publish any matter that is likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant.
- Covers the complainant's name, address, workplace, educational institution, and photograph.
- Applies to all media, including online publications, social media posts, and podcasts.
- Does not expire on the complainant's death — the restriction continues.
- Liability falls on the person who publishes, not only the author or editor.
Which offences trigger anonymity?
The anonymity restriction applies to the broad range of offences listed in the Schedule to the SOAA 1992, as amended. The list is extensive and includes:
- Rape and assault by penetration (Sexual Offences Act 2003, ss.1–2)
- Sexual assault (s.3 SOA 2003)
- Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (s.4 SOA 2003)
- Child sex offences under ss.5–15A and ss.25–26 SOA 2003
- Trafficking for sexual exploitation (ss.59A SOA 2003)
- Indecent assault (pre-2003 offences where proceedings are still brought)
Journalists should consult the full text of the SOAA 1992 and its Schedule for the complete list, which has been updated by subsequent legislation.
Naming defendants before charge
Unlike complainants, defendants in sexual offence cases have no statutory anonymity in England and Wales. However, several considerations bear on whether naming a suspect pre-charge is appropriate:
- Defamation risk:naming an innocent suspect causes serious reputational harm. Truth is a complete defence, but “the police are investigating” is not the same as proven wrongdoing.
- Police guidance:the College of Policing's Guidance on Authorised Professional Practice discourages routine pre-charge naming, though it is not prohibited.
- Contempt risk: if proceedings are active, prejudicial coverage can constitute contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
- Jigsaw risk: naming the defendant may, in a small community, effectively identify the anonymous complainant.
Jigsaw identification: the advanced risk
Jigsaw identification is the aggregation of individually publishable facts that, taken together, allow readers to identify an anonymous complainant. Each piece of information may be innocuous in isolation; the combination is not.
Common jigsaw elements include: the defendant's address or workplace; the complainant's relationship to the defendant (e.g. “a family member”); the complainant's approximate age; and the specific location where the offence occurred. Where the defendant is well-known locally, even generic relational descriptions can be decisive.
- Review all parallel coverage across outlets — jigsaw pieces may come from multiple sources.
- Do not assume that because one outlet has published a detail it is safe to repeat it.
- Consider whether your audience's local knowledge makes identification more likely.
Victim-led waiver of anonymity
Under s.3 of the SOAA 1992, a complainant may waive the anonymity restriction. The requirements are strict:
- Waiver must be in writing signed by the complainant.
- It must not have been obtained by interfering with the complainant's peace or comfort, or by offering any inducement or reward.
- A written waiver protects the journalist who relies on it in good faith.
- The waiver applies only to that individual complainant — it does not permit identification of other protected parties in the same proceedings.
Even with a valid waiver, journalists should consider whether identification serves the public interest and whether the complainant has had the opportunity to take independent advice before waiving.
Court applications to lift anonymity
Section 4 of the SOAA 1992 empowers a court to lift the anonymity restriction on application by a defendant. The test is demanding: the court must be satisfied that the restriction imposes a substantial and unreasonable limitation on reporting, and that it is in the public interest to lift it. Media organisations may be heard on such applications and should seek to intervene when the test is arguably met.
Balancing public interest
The strongest public interest arguments for identifying a complainant arise where the defendant has been convicted of serious serial offending and where anonymity would prevent other potential victims from coming forward or from understanding the full scale of offending. Even then, the statutory mechanism under s.4 should be used rather than unilateral publication.
Acquitted defendants present different considerations: the public interest in identifying a person acquitted of a sexual offence is generally weak, and the defamation risk is significant. Historical reporting of cases predating the SOAA 1992 may not engage the statute, but editorial caution remains advisable.
Primary sources
Frequently asked questions
Does the SOAA 1992 anonymity apply even before a complaint is made to police?
Yes. The anonymity under s.1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 is triggered as soon as an allegation of a relevant sexual offence is made by or in relation to the person, regardless of whether a complaint has been made to the police or whether any proceedings have been commenced. The restriction is not limited to the period during which proceedings are active — it is lifelong, unless lifted by court order or lawfully waived by the complainant.
What is jigsaw identification and why is it a risk for journalists covering sexual offence cases?
Jigsaw identification occurs when individually innocuous pieces of information — which may each be lawfully publishable on their own — are combined by readers to identify a person who has anonymity under the SOAA 1992. For example, reporting the defendant's address, describing the complainant as a family member, and giving the complainant's approximate age may together identify them even though no item alone does so. The offence under s.1 SOAA 1992 is committed if a report is likely to lead members of the public to identify the person — not just if it names them directly. Journalists must consider the cumulative effect of their reporting.
Can a victim of a sexual offence waive their own anonymity?
Yes. Under s.3 of the SOAA 1992, a person who has the benefit of the anonymity restriction may waive it by giving written consent to the publication of information identifying them. The waiver must be given in writing and must not have been obtained by interfering with the person's peace or comfort, or by offering any reward. A victim who waives their anonymity does so for themselves only — it does not allow others to identify co-complainants or other protected parties.
Is there anonymity for defendants in sexual offence cases?
There is no general statutory anonymity for defendants in sexual offence cases in England and Wales. An attempt to introduce pre-charge anonymity was abandoned. Police do sometimes withhold suspects' names before charge, and some forces have voluntary guidance in this area, but there is no legal bar on naming a suspect or defendant in sexual offence cases (subject to contempt law if proceedings are active and the coverage is likely to prejudice a fair trial). Journalists should be aware that naming a person accused of a sexual offence carries substantial defamation risk, particularly pre-conviction.
What happens if a journalist breaches the SOAA 1992 anonymity restriction?
Breach of s.1 SOAA 1992 is a criminal offence. The penalty on summary conviction is an unlimited fine. Prosecutions are not common but they do occur, particularly in cases of deliberate or repeated breach. Social media posts by journalists that identify a victim, even indirectly through jigsaw details, can form the basis of a prosecution. Editors and publishers may also be liable as well as the individual journalist.
Social media and the aggregation problem
Live-tweeting a trial, posting updates to a journalist's personal social media account, and engaging with audience replies all carry legal risk. The SOAA 1992 applies to every publication, whether in a news article or a tweet.