Judges blasted after ruling criminal suspects should not be named

JUDGES were blasted last night for ruling criminal suspects should not be named — to protect their human rights.

The Supreme Court said identifying those arrested but not yet charged would breach their right to privacy.

It means alleged terrorists, rapists and violent offenders will be granted secrecy — stopping victims or witnesses coming forward.

It also heightens fears that police, in the wake of recent Met scandals, can act without proper scrutiny.

Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, warned the ruling would have “far-reaching implications”.

She said: “It is well-documented that identifying suspects can lead to other complainants coming forward alongside witnesses for any future prosecution or defence.

“In addition, it is vitally important that the actions of the police remain open to scrutiny.”

Top lawyer Matthew Dando told the FT the ruling dealt a severe blow to the media and tipped the scales too heavily in favour of the suppression of information.

He added: “It is chilling that in a modern democracy there is now a general expectation of privacy in the fact of an investigation by the state.”

The ruling would have prevented further sex abuse victims of TV presenter Stuart Hall coming forward after his arrest in 2012.

Publicity around the 2013 arrest of Rolf Harris — later jailed for sexually assaulting underage girls — achieved similar results.

The Supreme Court’s decision came after an appeal by a US businessman. His company has been investigated in the UK over allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption since 2013.

In 2016, media outlet Bloomberg reported he had been quizzed as part of the investigation, which is ongoing.

Five judges yesterday found it misused his private info by identifying him. They said those under criminal investigation had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” before charge.

Bloomberg said it was disappointed by the decision, “which we believe prevents journalists from doing one of the most essential aspects of their job: putting the conduct of companies and individuals under appropriate scrutiny and protecting the public from possible misconduct”.