Appeal Court publishes reasons why rapist can not be granted anonymity

A COnViCTed rapist planning on returning to Scotland lost a plea for anonymity, in case his family became a “target of hostility”, because he was in the same position as all sex offenders, three senior judges ruled.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Stephen Fagan’s bid for anonymity and said the family of anyone who committed a serious sexual – or violent – offence might face a “hostile reaction”.

One appeal judge, lord Justice Aikens, said there was “noth- ing in the position of Stephen Fagan” which could justify any derogation from the general principle of open justice.

Appeal judges had ruled against Fagan, who is in his late 40s and comes from Airdrie, north lanarkshire, last month – but the reasons behind their decision were not published until yesterday.

Fagan was given a 14-year jail term by a judge sitting in newcastle upon Tyne, in 2006, after being convicted of committing two rapes – and of administering a drug with intent to com- mit a crime – in the north-east of england.

The dispute over the publication of his name developed earlier this year after he began publicly-funded legal action in an attempt to win the right to live in Scotland following his release from prison on licence.

in June a high Court judge ruled that Fagan could be named – but he imposed a temporary reporting ban until the case had been analysed by the Court of Appeal.

Appeal judges then also ruled that Fagan could be named.