The woman, who is protected by legal anonymity, claimed Mr Hann had raped her after she returned with him to his suite in the Savoy Hotel, in London, after meeting him on a night out in October last year.

Mr Hann, ranked 14th in the world and known in snooker circles as the Wizard from Oz, had insisted throughout the nine-day trial that the woman had made a play for him.

His lawyer, Ugo Palazzo, criticised the lack of anonymity for his client and said that the case should never have been brought to trial.

Is it time for the laws relating to rape trials to be changed? Should the defendant as well as the victim have a right to anonymity during the trial?

This Talking Point was suggested by Jane, Wales, UK:

"Following the acquittal of snooker player Quinten Hann, is it fair that his name has been tarnished while his accuser retains her anonymity? Should the laws relating to rape trials be changed and the accused granted anonymity until and unless they are convicted?"

If you have any suggestions for Talking Points,

If someone is accused and found guilty of rape then yes their identity should be made public. But conversely, in cases where the accuser is shown to definitely have made an unjust rape claim (and there have been some cases in recent years) the judge should have the right to name them instead. This might make help prevent malicious accusations which would be to the benefit of both sexes.
Ron, UK

People who 'cry rape' should themselves face some kind of criminal charge

Ste, UK

I was wrongly accused of rape and I find it dispicable that people like myself are 'named and shamed' without having actually done anything wrong. This type of 'reporting' can lead to an innocent party's life being ruined in the name of a cheap story. Whoever is found to be guilty, either of crying wolf or of actually carrying out the rape should be made public to alert the rest of society to their ways. People who 'cry rape' should themselves face some kind of criminal charge as they are making a claim that they know to be false with the sole intention of putting an innocent party in prison.
Ste, UK

Yes, people should definitely have the right to remain anonymous until proven guilty. Rape is a horrible crime, and rapists should get what they deserve, but even if a man is proven innocent, the mud will stick forever. It is too easy for a woman to falsely accuse a guy and ruin his life in the process, so no names should be released until a conviction has been made.
Liz, UK < I was a victim of a kidnap/rape by a stranger in California, some time ago...I did not know the name of the accused until the trial. The past convictions of the accused were not revealed to anyone, until his conviction. I was offered anonimity by the prosecutor, but declined. My thought in that decision was that I had done nothing wrong and had therefore nothing to be ashamed of. I think that offering alleged rape victims an informed choice as to whether to publish his/her name should be introduced.
Patricia Vanderveer, Merseyside,England

Name and Shame them... There's no smoke without fire.. Think if it was your daughter
Emma, Ireland

Anonymity for both the accused and accuser until the verdict is the only viable soloution.

Ollie J, UK

Anonymity for both the accused and accuser until the verdict is the only viable soloution. Some say that victims will only come forward if they see someone already being prosecuted. This is not the fault of the system, if a crime has been committed then it needs to be reported. I understand that this is far easier said than done, especially in the context of a sexual crime, but the fact still remains that by not reporting them it allows the perpetrators to be free to do it again.
Ollie J, UK

The aspect of anonymity in a rape case is interesting and raises the question: What is it about our society that sees a rape defendant as potentially more worthy of anonymity than, say, a murder suspect or a bank robber? Is it because there have been so many false accusations made against men in the past? This says something about our attitudes to different crimes. These days the media have too much influence over public opinion. Perhaps all defendants of all alleged crimes should have a right to anonymity unless proven guilty?
Trevor Martin, USA/UK

No the accused should not be allowed anonymity. Publication of their name and possibly a photo may cause other victims to come forward and secure a stable conviction.
Vick, UK

It often comes down to one person's word against another

Bob, England

Vick, UK. On that basis the alleged victim should be named so that others that they may have falsely accused can come forward to ensure a stable acquittal - it often comes down to one person's word against another.
Bob, England

Vick, you seem to imply that the accused will always be guilty. But that may not always be the case. I don't see why anyone accused of any crime should not be allowed anonymity during their trial. This might help justice, especially where high profile or publicly sensitive crimes are concerned. And, as pointed out, one is innocent until proven guilty. Why let the media potentially taint that. This applies both ways in trials where there is any publicity.
James, UK

Vick, UK, I see your point, but what if the accused is innocent, or do you believe everybody accused of rape is guilty? You also assume that every person accused of rape is not only guilty, but is also a serial rapist.
G, USA

I could not have coped with having my identity banded around the press

vick, UK

Thank you for your constructive replies to my previous comment.

I have been the victim in a serious assault and as a result I felt forced to give evidence against the accuser prior to any other victims coming forward. As a result of this, the court felt that there was only my word against the offender and he was let off. Now he has the opportunity to offend again, but if the people who came forward after the trial had had their evidence considered in additon to mine, a conviction would defintely have been secured.

As an innocent victim, I could not have coped with having my identity banded around the press and being treated as if I asked to be assaulted. I had enough trouble explaining to my family what had happened. The person who assaulted me however, after being found not guilty, was allowed a half page article in the a regional paper pointing out how young females 'ask' to be attacked. He certainly would have chosen the right to waive his anonimity.

Perhaps the alleged 'attacker', whether male or female, should be given the opportunity to put their case to the judge at a preliminary hearing to allow the judge to determine whether or not anonimity should be granted? Then a decision can be made based purely on the merits of the individual case?
Vick, UK

Give the accused the same rights as the supposed victim

Paul Sheehan, Coventry, England

There is no question that people accused of sex crimes should be anonymous until proven guilty. Why should these people have their names published when the crime is yet to be proven? A false accusation can ruin a life. Give the accused the same rights as the supposed victim.
Paul Sheehan, Coventry, England

Given the high and growing proportion of false allegations of rape being made by women against men, the accused should remain anonymous until found guilty. If the case is not proven, the accuser's name should be published as a deterrent to others making false claims.
Chris, London, UK

Think of yourself being accused of any heinous crime, of which you are innocent, and then trying to explain yourself daily for several months or years. "Innocent until proven guilty" for all. After being proven guilty then this should be held as a matter of public record - what the press and the individual wish to fight over after this point cannot really be helped.
Philip K, USA/UK

The present system is indefensible and manifestly unjust. Either both parties should remain anonymous or both parties should have their details disclosed. Otherwise you have these awful situations where the accuser can hide under the cover of anonymity and make baseless allegations against someone whose life is destroyed by the publicity. We've had too many examples of people abusing the system like this, so it should be changed, otherwise there is a risk of losing all respect in the system and the law in these situations.
Bilal Patel, London, UK

Publication of the accused name may allow other victims to come forward but the same can be said for publishing the accuser's name and allowing others falsely accused people to come forward. Given that a false accusation can destroy someone's life both should remain anonymous. Dual anonymity is not perfect but it protects the innocent.
Steve, UK

Surely, the rule is "innocent until proven guilty". If this is the case, then all parties should remain anonymous until after a verdict is reached. A person found guilty should be named in the public interest. The victim should never be named at all.
Graham Rodhouse, The Netherlands

Anonymity until found guilty .. then let everyone know!
Martin, England