In yesterday's coverage of the Terrence Smith appeal, The Royal Gazette took an editorial decision not to identify two members of the trial jury whose impartiality had been questioned.

This decision was taken because the grounds of appeal had not yet been accepted and because the Court of Appeal, having said it could not order the media not to identify the jurors, advised it to "err on the side of caution".

The Royal Gazette took the advice, as did the other media.

Today, The Royal Gazette has decided to identify one of the jurors, Gerald Simons, for two reasons.

The first is that the Court of Appeal decided to allow full argument on the question of whether Mr. Simons had been impartial.

This means that the Court of Appeal at least considers the argument to have some merit. This was not the case with the second juror, who remains unidentified.

Secondly, it would be impossible to give a fair and accurate report of the allegation without naming Mr. Simons, or without giving so much information that it would lead to his identification in any event.

The alternative would be to make the description so vague that it would lose meaning. This decision has only been taken after obtaining legal advice, and is done to ensure the public receives a full, fair and accurate report of a high-profile appeal in which there is great public interest.