header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 September 2017 / Patricia Londono
Issue: 7760 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Should sex offence suspects be granted anonymity?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Patricia Londono discusses the recent Supreme Court ruling in Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd

  • Khuja concerned an anonymity request by a man who was arrested along with other child rape and child trafficking suspects, but later de-arrested and subsequently not charged.
  • Caselaw and discussion regarding the public’s views on high-profile suspects, regardless of outcome.

The Supreme Court has delivered judgment recently in the case of Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2017] UKSC 49, [2017] All ER (D) 114 (Jul), concerning the controversial question of whether those accused of sexual offences, particularly pre-charge, should be entitled to any degree of anonymity. There has been growing interest in the reporting of alleged failures on the part of police and local authorities to protect adequately vulnerable teenage girls from sexual exploitation by older men (para [1]). However, there has also been mounting concern about the reputational harm caused to those who are suspected or arrested for criminal offences (see for instance Lord Leveson, ‘Report into the culture, practices

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll