When announcing an arrest, police do not normally include the name of the accused. In a case like this, it'll probably be in the papers soon though.
According to the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice guidelines:
Suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge except where justified by clear circumstances e.g. a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime or a matter of public interest and confidence.
I actually think the accused should be nameless until the end of the trial. However, this isn't the case in this country. Most accused people are named, so why not in this case? I think we already know the answer.