A report in Kent Online about the court appearance of a man charged with murdering a pensioner made me scratch my head.
The report – now updated – said the dead man "could not be named". I spent ages trying to work out which law was involved.
Contempt? It's hardly likely that naming a murder victim could prejudice the accused man's trial.
The IPSO code perhaps? Maybe the KM didn't want to upset the new regulator by intruding into any surviving family's grief?
Related
In the end I gave up and asked the paper. No reply. No freedom of information acts there then.
Kent Police were more helpful. Spokesman Andrew Saunders explained: "We only reveal names of a deceased person after the coroner has formally identified the victim and next of kin has also been informed. There was no legal reason behind this."
So unusually, the police had arrested and charged someone before the Coroner released the dead man's details. Impressive turn of speed from the boys in blue.
Content from our partners
Cleland Thom runs media law refresher courses
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
