In June 2016 the Evening Mail reported that a Millom man had been charged with historical child sex offences.

You also covered the trial in November 2016 with headlines such as "Millom man in court accused of historic sex offences against children". Under the current law you were perfectly within your rights to name that person, and you did so. However, you were incorrect as to the charge as there was only ever one alleged victim.

The Crown Prosecution Service would have welcomed the case being publicised and argued that it gave other possible victims the opportunity to come forward. None did.

Apart from the alleged victim's evidence there was only hearsay offered in 'evidence' by the prosecution.

I, and many others, offered testimony as to the alleged offender's good character and as to his being a major benefactor to many local charities and someone who had given many years in the service to the community.

In your subsequent report stating that the individual had been found 'not guilty', you said that the jury returned in under two hours. In fact they returned in 35 minutes, time for tea, coffee and biscuits and to decide unanimously that there was no case to answer?

The problem with the current system of 'naming and shaming' individuals before trial is that it provides an opportunity for anyone with a grudge, or other ulterior motive to come forward. This is particularly relevant where the accused is known to have substantial assets.

In short, anyone who has dealt with children may be the target of such allegations, and like the individual in question, may become the subject of trial by media and the 'no smoke without fire' syndrome.

Surely it is time to change the law and withhold identities of both parties until a verdict has been reached by a jury?

Robin F Pitt Haverigg