One of the things I have to do as a court reporter is oppose any application by defence solicitors who try and get their clients names and details withheld from the press.
It doesn't happen very often under Sec 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and sometimes there are good reasons for it such as matters of national security or because it could interfere with the administration of justice.
More often then not, however, it's because the defendant doesn't like getting their name in the paper associated with their bad deeds.
Such a case came up the other day and I opposed it vigorously and won although the law was on my side.
A defendant accused of downloading child porn tried to have his details withheld on the grounds that his son had the same name and could be targeted by people on his rough estate. He also claimed there were children living in his house who could be hurt if his neighbours decided to brick his windows on reading that they had an alleged paedo living nearby.
It transpired that his namesake was five years old and non of his children lived with him.
I pointed out to the magistrates that justice must be seen to be done and it was impossible to do that if the defendant is not named. I said they had to have legal reasons for denying publication of his details and if they granted his application, then it would be a very dangerous road to go down. After all, the law is not meant to be used for defendants to hide behind their children or their victims.
As it happens, the case is too serious to be dealt with by magistrates and it will go up to the crown court in due course.
Meanwhile, yours truly has a policy of not reporting adjourned cases until they are fully heard so my victory will probably benefit the agency that covers the higher court. No doubt had the magistrates granted the defendant's application, a judge would only have thrown it out at a later date in any event.