[The SMH stretches the limits of ‘not identifying’](http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/lawyer-remanded-in-custody/2007/12/28/1198778665451.html?s_cid=rss_news).
This is, in my mind, complete contempt of court. You either have a rule that really prevents identification or you don’t. No sensible person could possibly fail to make the correct identification of the suspect from that story, so long as they’d been reading [the SMH earlier in the day](http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/moti-forced-onto-brisbane-flight-to-face-charges/2007/12/27/1198345162009.html).