A FATHER who murdered one baby son and tried to kill another is today beginning a life sentence.

Yet the 39-year-old Caldicot man's identity remains protected by law.

The judge, Mr Justice Pitchford (pictured), sitting at Mold crown court yesterday, described the father as "a very dangerous man" - but said the ruling was to protect the identity of the killer's surviving son.

The judge - who requested psychiatric reports to determine how long he recommend the defendant serve before being considered for parole - said there was no evidence the father's actions were caused by a mental condition.

He said: "You had pretended throughout, despite the evidence against you - which became overwhelming - that the children were the victims of some natural or accidental event. At no stage have you sought help - at no stage have you acknowledged your fault. "I can only regard you as a man who is and will remain, for an indeterminate period, an extreme danger to any infant children that might be in your care."

Defending, John Coffee, QC, said: "There must be an obvious flaw in his make-up. "It is a bizarre situation for a parent to wish to harm a child."

Jurors at Cardiff crown court convicted the father in December of murdering his six-month-old baby son, trying to murder his seven-week-old son, and two charges of grievous bodily harm with intent on both children.

Speaking after the sentencing, Argus editor Gerry Keighley said: "The Argus twice attempted to overturn the ban on identifying this man, but both times we were unsuccessful. It is always in the defence's interest to protect their clients and the court has gone along with this.

"Some of the opposition to the Argus stand for open justice came from social services. Bearing in mind the involvement they had with this family I think that more openness, not less, would be in the public interest.

"A baby was murdered, yet the public is not even entitled to be told his name.

"It is only a technicality that has allowed this.

"If the father had not assaulted the surviving child the court would not have been entitled to impose this secrecy order.

"The public are being deprived of open justice in this case and I hope that, at the very least, a proper inquiry will be conducted to establish accountability."

One of the UK's leading media law experts, Walter Greenwood, co-author of the legal Bible, Essential Law for Journalists, supported the Argus' challenges.

He said the order would only "protect the guilty", adding: "The judge's reasoning is questionable, to say the least. It totally defies the principle of open justice.

"The House of Lords ruled in 1979 that these kind of restrictions can only be imposed when the administration of justice could be compromised. This is not the case here. "When a child is this young it is established practice that an order protecting their identity is not necessary.

"The judges should have left this matter to the sensible judgement of the newspaper editors."

But Newport East AM John Griffiths, who practised criminal law for many years, said: "I believe the surviving child's interests are paramount.

"I understand the Argus' concerns, but I believe that the public interest in naming the killer is outweighed by protecting the child's identity."