Earlier, he seemed inclined to allow the man to be identified, saying he thought it would be "better for the family".
One of the arguments given by defence lawyer Simon Lance was the hurt it would cause to the man's wife and daughter, who is understood to be struggling with the situation, if he was identified.
However, Judge Dawson said naming the man now would mean the news would be "tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping" by the time the man's daughter returned to school and his wife returned to work after the Christmas holidays.
"They will be in a position to be able to re-adjust their lives," he said.
"There's no shame on the family at all, it's the defendant who has offended. And the form of the offending, which I would regard as abhorrent, it in no way reflects any shame on the family. If anything there should be public sympathy for the family."
However, Mr Lance said the man's family supported continued suppression because "they don't want Christmas blighted".
Earlier this week his former employer pulled its support of his name suppression.