Questions have been raised over why the media had to fight to name an alleged war criminal charged with murder and torture in a landmark UK case.
Salem Al-Salem, 58, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday accused of crimes including murder and torture in Damascus, Syria, in 2011.
The Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police opted not to name Salem when announcing the charge, after his lawyers indicated they intended to apply for reporting restrictions to cover his identity.
Al-Salem was not publicly identified for around 24 hours after being charged, but at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring rejected Salem’s bid for a reporting restriction on his name after hearing submissions from the Press Association.
“Naming the defendant would not lead to an enhanced risk,” said the judge.
“The mere fact the offence might rise in people strong feelings of hostility and concern is not, and never has been, sufficient for the principle of open justice to be derogated down to the press not being able to report information the public is entitled to, so they can understand the allegations against the defendant, and most importantly to have confidence in the criminal justice system.”
Salem’s lawyers argued that if he was publicly named, it would pose a risk to his safety.
After the hearing, Rebecca Camber, chairwoman of the Crime Reporters’ Association, said: “Today the media had to fight to name an alleged war criminal accused of the gravest crimes, but why wasn’t he named by the police or CPS at the point of charge?
“Time and time again, we are seeing defence lawyers seek anonymity on the basis that suspects in high-profile cases might or could be exposed to a risk of potential harm.
“But as chief magistrate Paul Goldspring said: ‘The mere fact the offence might rise in people strong feelings of hostility and concern is not, and never has been, sufficient for the principle of open justice to be derogated.’
Source: Press Gazette
