Just one allegation can damage a person’s life irreparably, so should those accused of sexual offences remain anonymous unless convicted?

Katie Davis spoke to an MP’s former aide, who was acquitted of raping a woman in the Houses of Parliament.

In October 2016 the life of Sam Armstrong changed forever. Then 24 and working as an aide for South Thanet MP Craig Mackinlay, he was accused of raping a woman in his boss’s parliamentary office.

Within days his face was on the front of a national newspaper and he later endured what he describes as a “cruel public shaming”.

He was later cleared by a jury of all charges, but argues his identity – like his alleged victim’s – should have been protected from the start and only revealed if he was convicted.

Unlike most crimes, victims of rape and sexual offences are granted lifetime anonymity, while those accused are named when charged by police.

Mr Armstrong has called for a change in the law, saying the current legislation can leave the lives of innocent people in tatters.

“In my case, I was 24, I was at the start of my career and I had worked hard to get somewhere,” he said.

“I was fortunate enough to work for a fantastic boss in the shape of Craig Mackinlay. And I loved the work for Thanet.

“But overnight all that changed, in that a young lady made an allegation against me that was unfounded, and ultimately it was shown to be so.

“But in the intervening period, because of the extreme press interest in my case, I was slapped straight across the front of a tabloid newspaper within days.

“It was very difficult for me to work, it was very difficult for me to sleep – I lost an awful lot in the process.”

Mr Armstrong, now 25 and no longer working for Mr Mackinklay, was accused of forcing himself onto a woman in the early hours of October 14, 2016.

The pair had been drinking together earlier that evening.

Police stormed the offices of Mr Mackinlay following the accusation and Mr Armstrong was arrested on suspicion of rape.

“It felt like someone had punched me in the stomach,” he said. “In truth, it felt like the walls were crumbling in around me.

“I was taken into a room, I was forced to remove my clothing and I was subject to very invasive forensic tests. Then I was thrown into a cell and instantly I had a sense that my life was going to be very different from this point moving forwards – and there as absolutely nothing I could do about it.”

It would be 14 months before Mr Armstrong would appear for trial at Southwark Crown Court, charged with two counts of rape and two other sexual assaults.

The jury was told Mr Armstrong’s accuser had contacted a tabloid newspaper after police were alerted and text messages revealed she wanted to conceal her medical records, which showed she had been suffering from depression and anxiety.

Mr Armstrong always maintained the sex had been consensual and was cleared of all charges.

But he says his reputation had already been irreparably damaged, explaining the anguish of awaiting trial.

“It was a year in which it was difficult to eat, it was difficult to sleep, it felt like all of my friends, everyone I knew, thought the worst of me,” he added.

“There were people I thought I could rely on who when the moment came didn’t want to hear from me, didn’t want to know.

“And in the intervening period I had to go to court, I had to go to police stations, and when I arrived there were banks of cameras.

“On one occasion 30 paparazzi turned up to photograph me.

“It was a profound sense of shame. People where I lived looked at me funny. I was subject to a cruel public shaming and the consequences both psychologically and my physical health were overwhelming.”

He is now calling for a reconsideration of extending the right of anonymity to rape defendants until conviction, to stop others facing the “overwhelming physical and mental consequences” he has.

“All of that happened because we have a system at the moment that seems to treat the investigation process as part of the punishment,” he said.

“When an allegation is made people’s lives are essentially put on pause.

“And there can’t be a resolution until the end – and even then it’s not perfect because many people say there’s no such thing as smoke without fire.

“With an issue as sensitive as rape or sexual assault that goes further still.

“So the difficulty with naming suspects before it has been shown if they really are suspects or if they’re innocent victims in a scandal in which the accuser is in fact the perpetrator is that lives get ruined and ultimately at the end of the process there can be little construction back again because the damage over these very lengthy investigations is so large.”

Mr Armstrong, who now works in PR, says his life will never be the same again.

“There are still people that look at me differently,” he said. “For me it was so dramatic it will be the number one thing people will think about when they hear my name for the rest of my life.

“And that is not fair, that is not right. But it is true.

“The most consequential event and how people think about me will be something that did not happen rather than something that did. And anonymity would be such a simple change to make sure that injustice is not waged on anyone that does not deserve it.”

Senior law lecturer Dr Sinéad Ring says naming rape suspects can encourage more victims to come forward.

“The question of whether to extend anonymity to defendants is a complex one,” said the University of Kent academic, who has written extensively on historical child sex abuse.

“The defendant is entitled to the full protections of the legal process, including the presumption of innocence.

“An important advantage of keeping the status quo is that publicising a defendant’s name may alert other victims to the fact that a prosecution is ongoing and this may encourage them to come forward and report themselves.

“This is really important where a victim may have been coerced into thinking that nobody would believe them or that it was their fault.

“Granting anonymity to defendants would add further to the stigma and silence around sexual crime that exists in our society.”

Mr Armstrong accepts that naming suspects can encourage other victims to report sex crimes, but says it should not happen automatically.

“Are there going to be cases in which it is appropriate to name suspects? Absolutely,” he said. “But the presumption should be for anonymity. If the police or the prosecutors want to go to court and say we want to name this suspect because we believe there could be more victims, then that is a perfectly reasonable thing.

“But they should have to go to court, in the same way they have to get a search warrant, to say we wish to name this person, can we do so. It would be an easily managed system and there seems to me to be no good reason at all to resist it.”

In Kent, fewer than one in four rape cases brought to court by police results in a conviction, figures show.

Data released by the Ministry of Justice reveals that in 2017 only 23% of Kent Police’s prosecutions for rape were successful.

Last year, the force brought 138 cases to court, and 31 resulted in convictions.

The conviction rate is lower than for other sexual offences, and it’s also worse than other serious crimes such as grievous bodily harm, which is 36%.

However, figures for the county show rates have improved - in 2016 only 19% of cases brought to court secured a conviction.

Across England and Wales overall one in five rape cases are successfully prosecuted, according to the MoJ.

Mr Mackinlay backs Mr Armstrong's call.

He said: "Given that we’ve seen a whole series of rape and sexual offences trials collapse because the authorities had failed to disclose crucial evidence, I do think we should re-consider extending the right of anonymity to such defendants until charge or conviction.

"The treatment of Sir Cliff Richard is a case in point. It is horrendous and often permanently life-changing for those people who are publicly and often falsely accused of such crimes, as Sam’s experience patently shows."