I'm torn on the whole thing - but that clip of the coppers holding up underwear and rummaging round the bed (if memory serves) is way too much of a connotation given the allegation at the time from a defamation perspective, so I can see why it hits the privacy angle.
That said, as reported, if Judge determined naming him without the copter footage was still a breach of privacy, then the Judge is trying to create law presumably to level up sexual assault cases and anonymity impinging on press freedom.
On the other hand modern day press hardly hold themselves up as arbiters hacking phones and all that shit do they so are they worthy of that freedom?
I'm on the fence, as in a strict definition (short of that copter shot which is subjective) the BBC did nothing wrong - what now, anyone named on investigation can sue irrespective of release without charge or subsequent charge, because the naming of them is now a privacy issue???
Apparently the judgement does contain stipulations whereby naming to invite potential victims to come forward would not be a breach of privacy which is something - but...torn.