The editor of the Grimsby Telegraph has countered claims his paper was wrong to publish the name and address of a suspected paedophile who was subsequently murdered.

The pensioner, who was cleared of paedophile offences, was murdered after the details were printed in the paper.

The Telegraph found itself at the centre of court proceedings in a murder trial following an arson attack on his Grimsby home.

It had followed guidelines and published Alfred Wilkins’ address following his appearance at Grimsby Crown Court in November 2000 at which he was accused of three counts of indecent assault on a nine-year-old girl.

The prosecution at the Hull Crown Court murder trial suggested that events leading to the 67-year-old’s death followed that article.

Summing up, John Milmo QC said: “You [the jury] have in your minds the affect of that article in the Grimsby Telegraph. The Lord alone knows why they decided to include Mr Wilkins’ address, but they did and that is a fact.

“The events that followed seem to have resulted from that article. It is not my task to criticise the Grimsby Telegraph and I don’t. I simply point out the events that happened after publication.”

But Telegraph editor, Peter Moore, said later: “While I understand the reasons for references to the original story, I think it was unfair to criticise the paper because we take great care to adhere to strict guidelines that cover the reporting of court cases.

“There were no reporting restrictions preventing its publication in November 2000 which would have been in place had the court thought there was a risk of retribution concerning the defendant.

“When reporting court cases, an address is vital in distinguishing a defendant from others of the same name. If not, there is a clear possibility of a libel action against the newspaper taken out by those other people.”

Before the Hull trial started, Telegraph crime reporter Zoe Corney successfully made representations to the court to ensure a threatened section 39 order banning identification of a 17-year-old defendant was not put in place.