THE identity of a man accused of raping one of the Bullfinch trial victims and molesting another teenager is being kept secret by magistrates.

The 26-year-old appeared before Oxford magistrates yesterday accused of rape and sexual assault after he was arrested by officers working on Operation Bullfinch.

But magistrates ruled the public should not be told his name, despite the Oxford Mail saying it was against the principle of open justice.

Bullfinch is the police investigation into the sexual abuse and prostitution of underage girls in the city and last month seven men – who had all been identified from their first appearance in court – were jailed for a total of 95 years.

The latest defendant was arrested on Wednesday and then charged.

His solicitor Kam Varaitch applied for his identity to be kept secret under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.

That was opposed by the Oxford Mail because we argued the public had a right to know who had been charged and that the information we could report under current laws would not prejudice this case and was no different to any other defendant.

However, magistrates Rosemary Duckett, David Robey and Diana Pettifer ruled his identity could not be published. Their order says this is to “protect the fairness of the trial” as naming him might have a “substantially adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings”.

Andy Dipper, a spokesman for Oxford Community Against Trafficking, said: “It would seem incongruous to protect further alleged criminals. They should be treated in the same way as the seven perpetrators who were charged and sentenced in the first round, unless there are some extenuating circumstances.

“There should be an openness from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to encourage victims to come forward. They must be presumed innocent until they are proven guilty but at the same time a greater concern would be that this does not make it more difficult for victims.”

Oxford East MP Andrew Smith said: “I think people will be concerned about anonymity, especially in a case of this seriousness, but the court has all the relevant information where we don’t, so its decision has to be respected. I think there is a more general issue about courts being as clear as possible about why anonymity is in the public interest.”

The man was in custody following his arrest and was remanded after magistrates refused a bail application.

Mrs Duckett said “to cover all eventualities I am going to make an order” which “may not identify or tend to identify by any means” the accused.

A preliminary hearing will be held at the crown court on Monday.