A week ago I noted a story in The Sun that began: "A judge has ordered a child-sex pervert's name be kept secret - so his family will not be embarrassed." I admit that I didn't read on and therefore failed to grasp its significance. But I have now read a piece on the case on the Croydon Guardian website that has opened my eyes to the worrying implications of the case.
I now think the ruling by the Croydon senior resident judge, Warwick McKinnon, sets a disturbing precedent which requires investigation. He refused to lift an order preventing newspapers from naming a 45-year-old man who had admitted 20 charges of making and possessing indecent pictures of children that the judge himself described as "revolting and repulsive". After pleading guilty, the man was given a community order coupled with three years supervision and must attend a sex offenders' work programme.
When the man first appeared in court another judge, Kenneth Macrea, made a contempt of court order forbidding publication of his identity. That was challenged initially by freelance reporter Bill Bailey, but Judge McKinnon refused to lift the order after the man's counsel said he had two daughters who would be seriously affected by the publicity.
The Croydon Guardian, owned by Newsquest, then wrote to the crown court judge asking him to reconsider. Trinity-Mirror and the Press Association also wrote letters of protest. But Judge McKinnon, while acknowledging that "there is a legitimate and important interest in the freedom of the press to report court proceedings in full" and recognising "the general revulsion, anxiety and intensity of feelings over offences involving any element of paedophilia and the abuse and ill-treatment of children" decided that the order should stay in place.
I entirely understand that the man's daughters may well suffer from acute embarrassment if their father is named. Indeed, it may be intolerable for them. But that has always been the case: the relatives of the convicted are secondary "victims". Though that is a harsh punishment for the innocents, to restrict publicity on that basis would lead to secret trials which would be inimical to the wider public interest. All parents would be able to escape publicity for their crimes.
So I find myself in complete agreement with the views of Newsquest's lead of legal affairs, Simon Westrop, who says that the gagging order "is contrary to the principle that justice should be conducted openly."
He adds: "If the court's view is followed, then the unacceptable outcome would be that every convicted criminal who happens to have children will demand anonymity and the legal system will become a secret process."
That, of course, is the point. However much sympathy we might have for this man's children, we cannot allow a ruling like this to stand. I sincerely hope that Newsquest, with financial assistance from every major newspaper publisher, decides to launch an appeal against Judge McKinnon's ruling.
