Name and shame the prosecutors

Matt Gurney on Ian Thompson's acquittal:

It took two and a half years, but Port Colborne, Ont., resident Ian Thomson is finally done defending himself. First he fought the men who tried to murder him. Then, his own government.

Mr. Thomson was charged with ... two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe ...  it’s hard to imagine a more cut-and-dry case of lawful self defence than firing on men trying to burn down your home while you’re inside it. But the Crown insisted on pursuing the charges of careless storage.

... On Friday, an Ontario judge acquitted Mr. Thomson of both those charges.

... First and foremost, Mr. Thomson did nothing wrong and should never have been charged in the first place.

... best of all, a message has been sent to overreaching Crown attorneys.

Good news for Ian Thompson. But I'd like to know why it is that in news stories like this the prosecutors are referred to only as the anonymous, Kafkaesque "Crown" or "prosecution". Why are these mutts not named and shamed as a real deterrent to other prosecutors similarly inclined to abuse the justice system? Not to mention paying Thompson for costs and aggravation or having their asses sued off.

Update:  According to Karen Selick:

... his problems may not yet be over. The Crown apparently said even before the decision was rendered that if Thomson were not convicted, the government would appeal. It seems the Crown wants Thomson to go to jail for storing his gun and his ammunition in the manner necessary to save his life. [What complete arseholes!  All the more reason to name them.]