A weekly newspaper refused a “disturbing” request to keep a sex offender’s identity secret after a judge claimed journalists would be to blame if publication affected the convict’s children.

The Dearne Valley Weekender has named Richard Marsden after Judge Jeremy Richardson sided with his defence counsel’s request for anonymity at Sheffield Crown Court.

While the lawyer and the judge agreed there was no legal way they could make an order stopping Marsden’s identification, reporter David Parker was told journalists “would only have themselves to blame” if naming the 32-year-old meant there “were to be things happen to his children”.

Weekender editor Andrew Mosley, pictured, rejected the judge’s request, describing it as “a slap in the face for victims of sexual assault” and warned such a precedent could mean offenders making anonymity a “regular request” in court.

Marsden was handed a two-year prison sentence, suspended for three years, and was placed on the sex offender’s register for 10 years after previously admitting two counts of indecent assault, four counts of indecency with a child, two counts of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and sexual assault of a child under 13.

Marsden was aged between 13 and 14 when the offences took place and has been assessed by social services as posing no risk to children.

Laura Marshall, defending Marsden, made the request for anonymity at the sentencing hearing.

Judge Richardson told the court: “I have to trust their [the journalists’] good judgement. If there were to be things happen to his children, the journalists would only have themselves to blame.

“I’m a great believer in public reporting of cases before this or other courts. Because the journalists are responsible, usually, when I make a request, it is the subject of compliance, and I’m very grateful to the journalists for being responsible in all matters.

“I have no power whatsoever to prevent the reporting of your [Marsden’s] name. You have two young children and in my judgement they do need to be protected.”

The judge went on to note Marsden would be allowed to go back to live with his children following the assessment by social services.

He added: “In my judgement, it would be disastrous for them if they should read about this and are exposed to all the usual problems children … are exposed to.

“Therefore, in the interests of those children, not you, I make a request that name does not enter the public domain.”

James Baird, prosecuting, said Marsden had assaulted the girl, who was younger than him, while he was alone with her and would threaten to “tell her mother she had been naughty if she did not do what he asked”.

Mr Baird added Marsden would force the girl to perform sexual acts on him and he would perform sexual acts on her.

Ms Marshall told the court Marsden “has no interest in children at all” and added: “This is a man who chose to explore the hormonal urges of a young man in an incorrect manner.”

Judge Richardson, who banned Marsden from contacting the complainant indefinitely, told the defendant: “There’s no hint of sexual misbehaviour whatsoever in your life.

“You are a young man leading a respectable life and fall to be punished for something you did years ago, stupidly, as a youth who could not control your adolescent sexual urges.”

Speaking to HTFP, Andrew explained why the Weekender had decided to go against the judge’s wishes.

He said: “It’s a concerning trend as where do you draw the line? I understand his children and his family may suffer but if we start to not publish offender’s names and make a precedent for doing so then it will become a regular request.

“Also, it is likely that these requests will be made for more serious cases, which will have far-reaching repercussions for those involved, rather than in, say, burglary cases.

“It seems something of a slap in the face for victims of sexual assault – particularly in Rotherham – who are repeatedly being asked to come forward and report offences for the judge to then ask that the offender be protected by having his name kept out of the public domain.

“Also, it is incredibly disturbing for a judge to blame journalists for something that might happen.

“If we were to reverse the situation it would be the equivalent of us saying in open court that if the defendant is spared prison and commits further offences it is the judge’s fault.”

He added: “I think it’s hard enough for victims to come forward and for police and the CPS to get cases to court without a judge making these sorts of comments.”