The Press Note That Would Have Tried the Case in Print

1. "Known rowdy-sheeter and habitual offender" - an unverified characterisation. If it is not supported by the station record it is defamatory, and either way it invites the defence to argue that the police had prejudged the accused.
2. "Confessed before police" - a confession to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. Publishing it destroys its limited investigative value, hands the defence an argument that it was extracted, and creates a false public impression that the case is proved.
3. "Will identify him in court" plus photographs - the identification parade has not been held. Publishing the accused's photograph before the parade contaminates the very test the prosecution will rely on, and the defence will say the witness identified him from the newspaper.
4. "Will certainly be convicted" - this usurps the court's function, prejudges a sub judice matter and exposes the department to contempt proceedings and to a transfer or disciplinary inquiry; it is the single most damaging sentence in the draft.
5. School and family photographs - naming the school of a 14-year-old survivor makes her identifiable, which the child-protection law specifically forbids, and publishing her family's photographs endangers her safety and privacy. The disclosure is punishable, and no public-interest defence is available.

"On [date], a complaint was received at [police station] alleging an offence against a child. A case has been registered under the relevant provisions of law and is under investigation. The accused was arrested on [date] and produced before the [court], which has remanded him to judicial custody. The investigation is at an early stage, and no further details can be disclosed at present without prejudicing the inquiry. The identity of the child is protected by law and must not be published in any form. Any person having information relevant to the case may contact [designated number]." Why this version works: every sentence states a fact already on record - registration, arrest, production, remand - and nothing more. It uses the passive, official register appropriate to a police communiqué, gives the media something publishable so that the vacuum is not filled with speculation, and closes with a clear legal prohibition and a public-contact line. It contains no characterisation of the accused, no forecast of the outcome, no reference to evidence and no identifying detail about the child.

On the girl's name: refuse clearly and give the reason - publishing the name, school, photograph or any detail that makes a child survivor identifiable is prohibited, and the police officer who discloses it is personally liable. Do not soften the refusal by hinting at a first name, the locality or the school "off the record"; an off-the-record identification is still a disclosure, and it will be printed. On the quotes as an exclusive: decline to be quoted on the character of the accused, the evidence or the likely verdict; offer instead the neutral press note, on the record, attributable to the station. Also withhold the accused's photograph until the identification parade is completed, since publication would taint the parade; the reporter may be told the photograph will be made available later if lawful. Handling the request: note the request and the refusal in the station diary, inform the supervisory officer, and keep a copy of the final note issued. The reasoning is practical, not merely legal - an exclusive built on an officer's opinion converts the officer into a witness for the defence, whereas a short factual note leaves the case to be decided in court.