Had there been any doubt that the Stormont law imposing a blanket ban on identification of suspected sex offenders represented a clear infringement of the basic right to freedom of expression, this would have been expelled during one astonishing exchange at Belfast’s High Court.
During detailed submissions in the legal challenge brought by The Irish News and a range of other media organisations, a distinguished judge and senior lawyers found themselves having to carefully pick their words to avoid mentioning the name of Jimmy Savile, the notorious paedophile whose case has been the subject of intense scrutiny and several major inquiries.
A prohibition on publishing his name for 25 years after his death applied only in Northern Ireland, and a breach could have constituted a criminal offence carrying a jail sentence of up to six months.
Had it not been possible to identify Savile when details of the scale of his offending became known, on the basis that he was not charged during his lifetime, how many of his appalling crimes would have gone unrecorded, and how many victims would not have come forward to receive the support and recognition they deserve?
It’s just one example of the dangers of legislation that may be well-intentioned – in this case updating the law around serious sexual offences – but clearly did not undergo sufficient scrutiny to fully explore the unintended consequences that could arise.
Mr Justice Humphreys’ comprehensive judgment yesterday, striking down the relevant provisions around suspect anonymity, represents a landmark victory for press freedom and his comments recognising the vital role of public interest journalism as a watchdog in a democratic society will hopefully resonate in the corridors of government.
Key to the ruling was the fact that journalists had no mechanism, for example by application to a court, to set out what may be compelling reasons why it would be in the public interest to name a person in a particular case. A fair balance between the rights of suspects and the media had simply not been struck.
Only the Chief Constable could seek to have that anonymity lifted during the lifetime of a suspect – yet it is not hard to imagine circumstances where police themselves are coming under scrutiny over a failure to properly investigate an alleged offence, or the suspect in question is a senior police officer.
It also removes the ludicrous threat that victims of sexual abuse themselves could face criminal sanction if they publicly name their suspected abuser even after their death.
Had it not been possible to identify Savile when details of the scale of his offending became known, on the basis that he was not charged during his lifetime, how many of his appalling crimes would have gone unrecorded, and how many victims would not have come forward to receive the support and recognition they deserve?
Moving forward, Stormont must take note of the court’s withering assessment of the failure to properly weigh up public interest considerations during the legislative process.
Ulster Unionist leader Doug Beattie was quick yesterday to say that when MLAs get it wrong it is important to admit it, and this ruling should not be appealed.
There is a high legal bar for a judge to intervene against the democratically expressed will of a legislature and a judicial review requires significant financial outlay for the media organisations involved. This gives some idea of the significance of yesterday’s judgment.
It must be hoped that the justice minister and her officials take the same view as Mr Beattie and avoid the need for any further litigation.