Magistrates normally withhold the name of an accused person when this could lead to the identification of the victims in sensitive cases, especially of a sexual nature.

This is a very strong argument, particularly when the victims are minors or vulnerable people. It spares them the additional embarrassment and trauma of being labelled and targeted in public with unkind words.

But such decision can be controversial too, especially when a ban on the publication of the name can cast doubt on many others who happen to hold the same profession as the accused.

This was the case the other day when the press was prohibited from publishing the name of a sports coach who admitted installing spy cameras in the dressing rooms of his all-girls team. He had also urged them to try on new sports bras for very obvious reasons.

The magistrate hearing the case handed the 43-year-old man a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and also ordered he undergo psychiatric treatment to address his addiction.

The ban on the publication of his name was meant to protect the victims from being identified since their privacy had already been violated by the man’s actions.

It emerged in court that none of the victims were minors and they constituted a volleyball team. This, together with the fact that the man’s role as sports coach was known, raised questions as to whether the ban was justified.

While it can be understood that the magistrate wanted to protect the identity of the 17 women victims aged between 23 and 28, the decision risked backfiring on all male sports coaches in the same age bracket as the accused, particularly those active in volleyball.

To make matters worse, the man was also the director of a childcare centre and, according to sources who spoke with this newspaper, had also used a similar spy camera to film a colleague at the workplace. This meant his actions also cast a shadow on male directors of childcare centres.

The president of the Volleyball Association did come out saying the man had been suspended from the sport and the childcare centre where he worked said he was fired. But it is only on the strength of these statements, made in the aftermath of the court’s ruling, that the veil of suspicion cast on many innocent coaches and childcare centre directors could be lifted.

While protecting the victim’s identity is a crucial element in any court decision, the presiding magistrate needs to also give weight to the wider implications of decisions to withhold the name of an accused person.

Rather than banning publication of a name, perhaps the courts could consider discussing the implications with the media and seeking their cooperation. In this case, any concern about identifying the victims could have been mitigated by not mentioning the sport they were involved in.

One can never be sure that, by having a name ban on the coach, the identity of the victims would not be known in sporting circles, particularly those who are active in the volleyball scene.

What remains is the issue whether the victims would be identifiable by the public. In sharp contrast with the case of those involved in the scene, there can be little doubt that the name of the coach would not be enough for any outsider of the sport to draw links to the victims.

Unfortunately, banning the man’s name put every other coach and child centre administrator in the same basket.