Defendants in sex offences cases should only be named publicly if convicted, a weekly editor has suggested.
Michael Purton, of the Stroud News and Journal, put forward the idea in an editorial piece for his paper after it reported on recent allegations made against former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath.
In the piece Michael, pictured left, said the reputation of Sir Edward had “forever been tarnished” by accusations he had sexually abused children.
Stroud MP Neil Carmichael, who knew Sir Edward personally, had accused police of leading a “witch hunt” against his fellow Conservative, who died in 2005.
In his editorial comment on the story, Michael wrote: “Should people accused of sexual offences be publicly named before they are convicted? Sir Edward Heath’s reputation has forever been tarnished even if he is cleared of any wrongdoing.
“Sexual offence allegations carry a stigma and permanently change the way a person is perceived, despite the outcome of the police investigation.
“There is a general principle in the media that all defendants should be named whatever the allegation, unless there is a legal reason for withholding the name.
“Perhaps it is time this changed and defendants are only publicly named if convicted.”
Michael took over as editor of the Newsquest-owned News and Journal and sister titles the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard and Gloucestershire County Gazette earlier this year, replacing Skip Walker and Sue Smith.
He declined to comment further on the editorial when approched by HTFP.
At least seven police forces across the country are currently investigating historical child sex abuse claims made against Sir Edward, who was Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
How very strange.
Many editors think there are already more than enough reporting restrictions in the UK as it is without campaigning for extra curbs to be applied.
Report this comment
Am I getting older or are editors getting younger?
Report this comment
I favour not naming someone until they actually appear in court charged with an offence
Report this comment
This would be the editor of the same Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Standard that was rapped by IPSO for a sex abuse case report that suggested a connection between the alleged victim and the defendant? I’d suggest Michael concentrates on the basics first.
Report this comment
How can Heath be convicted (or acquitted)? He is dead. The main thing, for any offence, is that the trial, including any acquittal, should be fairly reported. The problem with providing this proposed anonymity for those accused of sexual offences would be that many other (most) charges are damaging to reputation, so granting such anonymity to those accused of one type of offence would be a slippery slope to such anonymity being argued for all defendants. Is it worse, for example, to be accused of rape rather than murder? So should those accused of murder have such anonymity until and unless convicted? And what about a businessperson accused of fraud? Such anonymity would stop all identifying detail being reported contemporaneously and so risks making court reporting bland. As I say, if cases are properly reported, reputation for those acquitted is – or should be – restored in most cases. Or do we all think, even after acquittal, that police and prosecutors never get it wrong, ? Also, publishing the names of defendants can lead to more victims coming forward.
Report this comment
Very often the naming of a defendant in sex cases in the media leads to other alleged victims coming forward.
This is no bad thing unless the accuser is doing it with ulterior motives.
Report this comment
Presumably this will actually be happening at the Stroud News and Journal then? Editors shouldn’t spout off on things like this unless they are going to do it in their own titles. For the record, I believe names should not be made public until they appear on court lists or in an official police request for information.
Report this comment
Operating to these standards would have also left Savile’s name untarnished, surely?
Still, keeping this stuff out of print would leave more space for those nice press releases which are so popular these days.
Report this comment
And if we don’t name sex offenders until conviction, how on earth can we report trials, given we can neither report the name of the victim or her relationship to the offender? What will happen is that local newspapers will just not bother sending reporters to court for these type of cases because any repot of them will just be a nonsense. This has already happened with the youth court and family courts.
These cases will cease to be reported. Secret justice is no justice at all.
There are many people who have been tried for sexual offences and found not guilty for whom life has continues afterward. Michael Le Vell and William Roache are back in Corrie and managing to maintain normal life.
People aren’t stupid. They understand the justice system and they know that people found not guilty of a crime are just that. Not guilty.
How about Purton stops worrying about the offenders and starts thinking about how justice can best be served for the victims? Publicity helps find other victims which ultimately leads to safer convictions. Having another victim can give women the strength to appear in court to give evidence.
Aside from all this, I’m pretty stunned that a newspaper editor is calling for more reporting restrictions. Surely he should be calling for more transparency?
Report this comment
Bet he regrets saying it now!
Report this comment
Mark Hannah. Ted Heath is dead (an easy target) but one famous singer very much alive who was totally innocent was named as being investigated. Why? What public benefit was there in this? (apart from flogging papers and getting web hits)
There are a lot of thick people in the world who believe if someone is being investigated they must be guilty.
I certainly believe no-one should be named in the media unless they are charged.
The old excuse about it helping police uncover potential crime does not hold water. If you named them when charged, people could still come forward.
I think this editor has a point. Sex crimes are a special case and engender such hatred that even if someone is found not guilty they can have their lives ruined.
Publish their names by all means, but only upon conviction and only when all appeals have been heard.
It might not help sell papers, but it would be fairer, And isn’t that what all newspaper editors want. A fairer society. After all even hacks are members of the human race!
Report this comment
I think most people will disagree with Mike Purton for several good reasons already stated here.
Report this comment
Not such a daft idea.
Except to those who want to exploit the name of people for selling newspapers and clicks on websites.
A person is innocent until proven guilty at court. Police releasing details of people under investigation is grossly unjust. It might be news, and as hacks we all love a bit of that. But were are talking fairness and justice here.
There is a moral argument for not naming anyone charged with an offence until they are found guilty, because too many people now equate being charged (or just being investigated) with being guilty. But that is probably taking things too far. Certainly some cases, such as murder and sexual offences, should not been named unless someone is found guilty. There might be gossip, but there is always gossip.
Report this comment
Moral argument, barrackroomlawyer?
Who made local newspapers guardians of the nation’s morals?
And yes, coming up with stuff to help sell papers is what reporters and editors are actually paid to do.
If you want to change the world then try becoming an MP. I believe they’re offering a very good salary these days – and plenty of perks.
Report this comment
There are fair points on both sides. Maybe the equitable solution is to name defendants, but also cover acquittals with reasonable prominence? This needn’t be dull (there’s human drama in unjust accusation, and an acquittal means – at least in theory – that the guilty party is still “out there”). But for some reason we very often give a “not guilty” verdict far less exposure than a “guilty”.
Report this comment
Good points made by all – but in the real world, police officers investigating a high-profile sex offence don’t usually officially release the identification of the target – you get that from your contacts, or you did when I was a real reporter. The police put out a statement which says something like: ‘A 64-year-old man is being investigated over an allegation of sheep-molesting’, or whatever.
Mr Purton sounds like a bit of an idealist, which is lovely. But if he had it cast-iron that a prominent figure was being quizzed over some God-awful perversion, would he REALLY be able to resist splashing it all over the front page? Would any journalist worth his salt? Hmmmmm…
Report this comment