AddThis SmartLayers

Judge rejects press appeal against paedophile anonymity ruling

A judge who barred newspapers from naming a man who had child pornography on his computers at his home has refused to lift the order, in spite of strong protests from lawyers representing the local press.

Judge Warwick McKinnon said at Croydon Crown Court yesterday that his concern was the effect that publicity would have on the 45 year-old defendant’s children.

The man was last week given a community order after pleading guilty to 20 charges of making and possessing indecent images of children, some of whom were as young as four.

The pictures, the court heard, were of a high level of obscenity. They were discovered when a colleague was at the man’s home in Upper Norwood in November, 2002, and working on a desk computer.

He accidentally accessed pictures showing children in sexual positions with other children and with adults.

Judge McKinnon had described the images as “revolting and repulsive”.

On his return to court after the Easter break he said that he was making a new order under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, taking into account oral representations of the freelance press and written representations from Time Mirror, Newsgroup Newspapers and the Press Association.

He added that he recognised there is a legitimate and important interest in the freedom of the press to report court proceedings in full, and whilst he also recognised the general revulsion, anxiety and intensity of feelings over offences involving any element of paedophilia and the abuse and ill-treatment of children in whatever form, he had still decided on the court order.

He said: “For the protection of the two young daughters of the defendants who are under the age of 18 years from abuse and ill-treatment, and being vulnerable, of school age and liable to the risk of social exclusion by their peers, teasing and taunting, harassment, intimidation, bullying and violence, and for their continued privacy, welfare and well-being which is necessary, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, no newspaper or other media report of the proceedings shall reveal the names, addresses or schools of the two children, or include any particulars calculated to lead to their identification, and for the avoidance of doubt, ‘any particulars calculated to lead to their identification’ includes the identification of the defendant himself by his name and/or address, and any particulars which are themselves calculated to lead to his identification.”

Judge McKinnon was, in effect, issuing a variation of the original order made in December by Judge Kenneth Macrae, added that he was prepared to receive written responses from the press, but he would not accept oral applications – thus muzzling freelance reporter Bill Bailey from making a second attempt in open court to get the order changed.

Back to the law index