On what possible grounds would a magistrate order that a man found guilty of a crime she described as “very repulsive” – collecting pornography involving children aged nine years or under – should not be named (Guilty of possession of child pornography, TMID, 28 April)?

Don’t his colleagues and his neighbours, especially those with young children, have a right to know who this person is?

Is he perhaps, a priest, a teacher, or a youth worker?

Why the need for secrecy?

Revel Barker

Ghajnsielem, Gozo