The Media Column: When the jury has finished, trial by the Press begins

Just over a week ago, the trial of the Australian snooker star Quinten Hann over an allegation of rape ended in acquittal. In an unusual step the judge, Judge Timothy Pontius, commended the jury for its decision and to allow Mr Hann to go free.

When it was all over, Hann's solicitor, Ugo Palazzo, made the now customary appeal in cases like this. "A celebrity like Quinten is often exposed to a greater risk of false allegation than ordinary members of the public and the consequences are far more damaging... That Quinten did not benefit from the anonymity afforded the complainant means, sadly, that in this case the victim was, and remains, Quinten Hann."

It was a view with which several newspapers agreed. There was much sympathy with Mr Hann in his predicament as wrongly accused, much excoriation of the anonymous accuser (Miss S) for having brought false charges, much complaint about the rule allowing an accuser to remain unnamed while the accused's identity is widely publicised. The verdict, after all, had "proved" that the defendant was innocent, and that the woman was a liar.

It may be true that there is the occasional woman who will be prepared to go through what Miss S went through in order to press a false charge. But while I have never met a single man who has been falsely accused of rape, I have met many women who have been raped or sexually assaulted, and who have not gone to court. And I mean, many.

Their decision not to press charges is logical. In cases where there is no witness and no corroborating evidence of violence, it is very hard to surmount the rule of "reasonable doubt".

Victims will be rigorously cross-examined by barristers like Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, who, acting for Hann, argued, "Sometimes, in the heat of passion when a woman says no she doesn't necessarily mean no... You can say 'no' a thousand times but if you show by your actions that you don't mean it, it doesn't necessarily mean that consent is withdrawn."

So what happened after the acquittal was that the accused man was declared innocent, not just by the jury, but by the media. And the accusing woman was declared guilty of perjury by the press alone, despite not having a trial at all. Although in Sunday's News of the World Hann was quoted as saying that, "now she's been proved to lie in court she should be charged with perjury. I want her named".

Unfortunately for Hann the appearance of this interview coincided with major pieces in two other newspapers, the Sunday Mirror and the Mail on Sunday. They were now taking a very different line from their daily counterparts. Indeed the Sunday Mirror editorial said this, "It is Hann who has been portrayed in some sections of the media (my italics) as the real victim... What a ludicrous throwback to the dark ages of sexual attitudes."

What was going on here? Why the conversion? The Sunday Mirror carried an interview with Ms S, and it was pretty clear that their journalists felt – as the jury hadn't – that she was telling the truth (her fee for the interview was donated to a rape charity). But more importantly, they and the MoS both reported that two other women – one in Manchester and one in Australia – had accused Hann of sex attacks. Both of these women, Janine Thorpe and Freya Brown, had been prepared to testify in court, but had apparently been told that their evidence was inadmissible.

Mr Hann has not been charged or tried for these offences, and he has been acquitted for the one charge that was brought against him. And he now has recourse against both the newspapers and his three accusers – he can sue for libel. I will be interested to see if he does.