Having read what I assume to be the article in question, it does not appear to be in breach of the law or the Editors' Code of Conduct as set out by the Press Complaints Commission as it cannot be said that the victim's right to lifelong anonymity has been compromised in any way.
The article gives the year and the town in which the offences were committed but makes no reference to there being any relationship between the unnamed woman and the offender and, as such, the victim could be any woman of any age.
As far as can be ascertained, only one article relating to the case has been publshed to date therefore the issue of jigsaw identification of the victim does not apply.
I appreciate this is not what you want to hear, but it's unlikely you have any grounds for complaint and I am concerned you were not warned beforehand that local and/or national press coverage of the case is always a possibility in cases of this nature, as it is with any case dealt with in the Magistrates' or the Crown Courts which is not heard in camera.
It should be noted that the sentence as reported does not concur with that which you stated was handed down in your previous thread and I would suggest you seek clarification from the Court as to its exact length and also request the precise terms of the SOPO (Sexual Offences Prevention Order) which you were told, or are under the impression, was made as a 'restraining order' for your protection.
Without wishing to be a harbinger of further doom, I am now wondering whether you have been informed that the offender has 28 days from the date the sentence was handed down to appeal its length and that he may request visits from his dc while he is in prison.
The publication of the article has obviously been a shock for you and it's to be hoped that, when your intital distress subsides, you will be able to see that the case has been properly reported in the most measured terms with far more attention being paid to the Judge's remarks than to the manner in which the offences were committed.
As is always the way with yesterday's news, the newspapers which contained the article are now being used to line cat litter trays, light fires, make papier-mâché, or have been consigned to recycling bins, and those who read the article will just as quickly forget it.
Furthermore, having any reference to the article removed from the internet will mean that women who may unwittingly become involved with the offender on his release from prison will be unable to discover his true nature by searching his name.