If publicity is in itself a punishment, it seems unfair that naming a sex offender depends on the judge in the case, writes Carol Coulter , Legal Affairs Correspondent
One of the reasons Judge Michael Pattwell gave for imposing a non-custodial sentence on Tim Allen was the treatment he and his family had already received at the hands of the media.
Publicity was seen as a punishment. Indeed, in two other cases involving similar charges, the district justice in the case ordered that those charged not be identified in order to protect their families.
This certainly seems to imply there is one law for the rich and another for the not-so-rich (as far as we know), but this time operating to the disadvantage of Allen.
In a different case, only yesterday a number of media organisations were in court charged with contempt for identifying the juveniles involved in a recent "joyriding" incident which led to the death of a taxi driver. There is a statutory prohibition on the identification of juveniles involved in criminal proceedings.
They have denied contempt and the case continues.
Both these cases raise the question as to whether we are well served by the existing law moderating media coverage of certain types of cases, and whether this law is consistently applied.
No one has ever seriously argued that we should change the law protecting the identity of juveniles convicted of offences.
The law is based on the idea that children can get into trouble, but that every effort should be made to rehabilitate those who do, and ensure that youthful transgressions do not blight the rest of the culprits' lives.
It may be that we fail to rehabilitate many of these children - especially from troubled backgrounds - who break the law, but this is not an argument in favour of further stigmatising them. The issue in relation to those accused of sexual offences is much more complicated. Such cases are not open to the public, but the media can report them.
However, in relation to rape and sexual assault, the identity of the perpetrator cannot be published until after conviction, and then only if doing so would not identify the victim.
Sometimes the victim gives up her or his anonymity in order to allow the perpetrator to be named.
However, even where the victim is willing for him or her to be named, it is common for lawyers acting for the accused to ask the judge to impose reporting restrictions for the sake of the perpetrator's family, and the judge often complies.
This does not appear to be the intention of the legislation. In other criminal trials the undoubted shame visited upon the family of the person convicted has never been an argument preventing the reporting of the case.
In child pornography cases, like those currently in the news, it is virtually impossible to identify the victim because, as far as we know, all child pornography discovered so far has been created outside the State, much of it in the Far East or the former Soviet Union.
So the usual argument for not identifying those convicted of a sexual offence does not apply.
However, Allen was identified shortly after the Garda raid, before the case came to court at all, apparently by Garda sources.
This raises a separate issue entirely - the publication of material which could prejudice a fair trial, and certainly damage a person's name, before any trial has taken place at all.
The mere association of a person with child pornography is very damning, and goes against the spirit of one of the fundamental maxims of our legal system - that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Allen's identification led to considerable comment in the media. If he had pleaded not guilty it is likely the case would have gone to the Circuit Court and therefore a jury trial.
It is likely his lawyers would have argued that, given the media comment, he could not have got a fair trial.
This could have led to an acquittal. Even if this argument had not been used and he had fought the case on the facts and been acquitted, it is arguable that his reputation would never have recovered.
However, once a person has been convicted of such an offence, there is no good reason why he should not be identified, especially as there is no identifiable victim to protect.
The perpetrator's family may indeed suffer as a result, but this is the case with every criminal conviction, and the responsibility for that surely lies with the offender. Some judicial decisions preventing identification seem inexplicable.
It is true, of course, that a convicted person with a high profile will suffer disproportionately from such publicity.
But it is part of contemporary reality that an individual who has benefited, materially and otherwise, from exposure in the media is likely to suffer more from negative publicity when that arises.
The leaking of information about high-profile arrests is unlikely to stop unless and until those members of the Garda who engage in it stop doing so.
However, there is a real danger that the leaking and publication of this material will one day lead to an acquittal.
Meanwhile, however, we need a consistent policy from the judiciary on the identification of those convicted of sexual offences.
If, as Judge Pattwell maintained, publicity is in itself a punishment, it seems hardly fair that identification depends on which judge the accused comes before, and the extent to which he or she is already in the public eye.