Why do the courts not allow some people's names to be disclosed in the press even if they are over 18?

[suzyangel]

I can understand it if they are UNDER 18, but cannot think of one reason why someone in their 30's has immunity!

[Ethel]

Let us say the adult is a sex offender. He has raped his young daughter.

By naming him the daughter is also identified.

Very often it is the victim that needs the identity protecting and naming the criminal would identify the victim.

This is just one example.

[suzyangel]

But what if it is not that kind of case...completely unrelated?

[n00dles]

There might be doubt as to the person being guilty of the offence supposing the "undisclosed" is the one on trial.

Or if someone is connected to the case (but not the person(s) on trial etc, it could harm there wellbeing or livlihood if their name is published/realised.

There could be any number of reasons similiar to the above.

[n00dles]

Should have added another scenario:

The undisclosed is a witness, and it could be that if their name is published they could be victimised. Witness protection is not always afforded in certain cases, but to withold the person's name is suffice to stop any retribution or further distress etc.

[kipchik]

Still think,do a crime-get named and shamed!!

[n00dles]

But the thing is kipchick, we don't know the scenario do we? If suzyangel had said that the defendant (found guilty) had reporting restrictions placed, then YES, most of us would probably agree with your sentinments.....but we (Ethel and I) can only answer with the limited details, as to why the courts have taken this action.........so we have both 'made up' possibilities. It could be an innocent witness/bystander.

This in fact did happen a few years ago, where a man was witness to a nasty assault, (not involved himself), but the company he worked for did not like the media coverage it generated, (stupidly they took it as a slur on them) when details of the witness stated who he worked for. The poor fella was sacked, through no fault of his own.............

[kipchik]

take for example,a young child killed by teenagers,teens or not they done the crime SHOULD be named and shamed,old enough to commit,old enough to suffer themselves!

[suzyangel]

BUT...the person who was found guilty (with two others, who were named) was not named...why? Find this odd, why? Why would this person not be named but others were? This person was NOT the victim, but was a perpetrator fact) so WHY? Really curious....

[spudqueen]

I think I read about the case you're on about suzyangel and I just presumed that the unnamed one had given evidence against the other two, presumably if he isn't named then when he's in prison the other prisoners won't know that he's a 'grass'.

[suzyangel]

ahhh...this could be true...is that possible then?
P.S Only curious out of nosiness....not because I'm planning a crime!!!!!!!

[maxi29]

A person might also not be named because he's due to stand trial on another offence and naming him might be prejudicial.

[tomd]

We're not a vigilante state, it's not up to you to enforce the law. Often criminals will not be named for their own protection from attack - if they're found guilting and serve their time in incarceration, it's not anyone's concern who they were once they came out.

In short, you really don't need to know.

[suzyangel]

Not my question.....I wanted to know WHY some are named and not others.

But on that point, if your child/mother/brother etc was murdered I expect you WOULD think the public should know who they are. Also, paedophiles crimes make me think that they should be named.