Five appeal court judges are to decide whether the Croydon Advertiser and Croydon Guardian can name a paedophile who stored ‘revolting’ images of child pornography on his computer.

In an unusual move, Judge Warwick McKinnon previously ruled that the man could not be named as it would embarrass his family.

And the Court of Appeal has now decided that the case raises such serious issues that it should be considered by five judges rather than the usual three.

Freelance journalist Bill Bailey had challenged Judge McKinnon’s decision to place a ban on identifying the man in open court at the original trial hearing at Croydon Crown Court. The Guardian was also involved in the bid to change the judge’s mind.

The appeal has been brought by Trinity Mirror, Newsquest, The Times and News Group Newspapers.

Justice McKinnon used section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to ban the publication of anything to identify the two children of a man who had admitted 20 charges of possessing and making pornographic pictures of youngsters. He added that identifying the defendant would identify his children.

The appeal, being brought under section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is based on a claim that the judge had no power to make an order under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, because the man had been named in open court, and because the information covered by the order had not been previously withheld from the public.

The children, in whose interests the order was made, are expected to be represented in court by the Official Solicitor’s office.

Judge McKinnon has consistently rejected the media’s assertions that he did not have the power either to give the defendant anonymity because he had already been fully identified in open court, and did not have the power to ban publication of information – including the defendant’s name – which would identify the man’s children, who are not concerned in the proceedings in any way.

On June 7, the hearing at which he confirmed the banning order, he said it was “a run of the mill case” and asked: “What is the press’s justification for wanting to name the defendant?”, adding that the order did not mean that the press could not report the case, only that it could not identify the defendant.

The appeal, which was lodged on June 21, follows a long campaign by the media to name the defendant, who first appeared in the Crown Court at Croydon on December 5 last year, and who was sentenced on April 2.

The new hearing is unlikely to take place until next year.