The story of Peter Connelly has troubled the British public since his life ended, at the age of 17 months, of a variety of tortures and injuries inflicted in north London in August 2007. His mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker and Mr Barker’s brother Jason Owen were convicted in May of “causing or allowing” the child’s death. Perhaps some lessons can be taken from this gruesome episode. But until last week, the public has had to absorb them in ignorance of who the mother and the boyfriend were. By court order, all journalistic discussion of the case, even after the verdict, had to omit the names of the couple, and Peter Connelly was known only as “Baby P”. (Mr Owen was named.) With the lifting of the gag order, we have a clear view of the situation. We also know one of the good reasons why their anonymity was protected for so long – to avoid prejudicing a grisly trial, involving the rape of a two-year-old, in which Mr Barker was found guilty and given a life sentence. Ms Connelly was cleared on a lesser charge.

Bizarrely to non-British eyes, the decision to name the authors of this monstrous crime, now the rape trial is over, has caused controversy. All sorts of rationales have been advanced for continuing the gag order, ranging from the privacy of Peter Connelly’s siblings to the safety of Ms Connelly and Mr Barker in prison. From its usual business of managing wrongdoers’ liberties, the justice system has wandered into the business of managing public attitudes. It will be a good thing if the procedures for anonymity followed in the Baby P case until this week prove the exception rather than the rule.