Exterior view of Westminster Magistrates Court in 2017. Picture: Kit Leong/Shutterstock
Questions have been raised over why the media had to fight to name an alleged war criminal charged with murder and torture in a landmark UK case.
Salem Al-Salem, 58, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday accused of crimes including murder and torture in Damascus, Syria, in 2011.
The Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police opted not to name Salem when announcing the charge, after his lawyers indicated they intended to apply for reporting restrictions to cover his identity.
Al-Salem was not publicly identified for around 24 hours after being charged, but at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday morning, chief magistrate Paul Goldspring rejected Salem’s bid for a reporting restriction on his name after hearing submissions from the Press Association.
“Naming the defendant would not lead to an enhanced risk,” said the judge.
“The mere fact the offence might rise in people strong feelings of hostility and concern is not, and never has been, sufficient for the principle of open justice to be derogated down to the press not being able to report information the public is entitled to, so they can understand the allegations against the defendant, and most importantly to have confidence in the criminal justice system.”
Salem’s lawyers argued that if he was publicly named, it would pose a risk to his safety.
After the hearing, Rebecca Camber, chairwoman of the Crime Reporters’ Association, said: “Today the media had to fight to name an alleged war criminal accused of the gravest crimes, but why wasn’t he named by the police or CPS at the point of charge?
“Time and time again, we are seeing defence lawyers seek anonymity on the basis that suspects in high-profile cases might or could be exposed to a risk of potential harm.
“But as chief magistrate Paul Goldspring said: ‘The mere fact the offence might rise in people strong feelings of hostility and concern is not, and never has been, sufficient for the principle of open justice to be derogated.’
“What would it say about British justice if a man accused of killing three men and torturing another three victims in a landmark case was allowed to remain nameless?
“Open justice is one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy.
“It doesn’t matter how famous you are or how infamous the alleged crime, trust and confidence in our rule of law rests on the public knowing what happens in our courts.”
The defendant, who has motor neurone disease, appeared in court by video link and used a breathing tube throughout the hearing. He was set free on bail by the judge, but is essentially housebound due to his health and effectively under house arrest during the criminal proceedings.
The criminal investigation was launched in 2021 and led to a charging decision more than four years later.
The Press Association opposed the defence bid for a reporting restriction, arguing the rare circumstances where a defendant appears in court with anonymity did not exist in this case.
The judge acknowledged that while Salem, a former Syrian colonel, had argued naming him would increase the risk to his safety, no evidence had been put forward to support the submission.
Salem’s legal team had sought a reporting restriction under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act to cover his name and address, to last until Friday when he is expected to appear at the Old Bailey in front of a High Court judge.
Sean Caulfield, a lawyer for Salem, argued an order lasting three days would allow time to gather evidence of the perceived risk to his safety.
But after submissions by the press that evidence could have been sought during the four-year investigation, Judge Goldspring agreed to an order which only restricted reporting of Salem’s home address.
Mrs Justice Cheema Grubb is expected to decide on Friday at the Old Bailey whether the limited order should remain in place as the criminal case proceeds to trial.
A CPS spokesperson said: “The CPS is firmly committed to the principle of open justice, but it is ultimately for the courts not prosecutors to determine whether reporting restrictions are justified.
“Where defence teams signal an imminent intention to seek anonymity, the CPS must act cautiously and take care not to pre empt or undermine the court’s role by making irreversible decisions before judicial consideration has taken place.
“In this case the name was shared with media in advance to allow them to make their own decision whether or not to publish, based on the same information to the CPS at that stage – that the defence were seeking an application.”
Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog