Summary
In this high-profile case, the Crown Court refused the media’s application to lift reporting restrictions in relation to two 12-year-old defendants convicted of murder.
Details
On 10 June 2024, the defendants in this case were convicted of murder by a jury at Nottingham Crown Court. The defendants were both only 12 years old at the time of the offence. Three media organisations made an application to lift the reporting restrictions so that the young defendants could be named. The family of the victim were supportive of the media’s application. The application was opposed by both the Defence and the Crown.
Before determining the application, the Court requested that the Youth Justice Service address the implications for the defendants and their families if the reporting restrictions were to be lifted within the pre-sentence report.
The Court was provided with detailed information about both young defendants and their backgrounds by the Youth Justice Service. The Court heard that the first defendant was still only 12 years old and that children’s services had been heavily involved in his life. He was vulnerable to exploitation, had been referred to children’s mental health services and there had been previous instances of self-harm. He was a child with extremely complex needs and he had been assessed as functioning at a lower level than his chronological age, both in terms of his understanding and emotional literacy. The Youth Justice Service expressed concerns that naming him would have an extremely detrimental impact on his mental health, and his rehabilitation as well as a negative impact on his family.
In relation to the second defendant, the Court heard that he had recently turned 13 years old and whilst he was physically mature for his age, he was still young and would require time to mature emotionally in an environment where he felt safe. The Court also heard that his mother had experienced mental health difficulties. The Youth Justice Service also raised concerns about the impact on his rehabilitation and his family if he was to be named.
The media argued that reporting restrictions had been lifted in the cases of other young defendants and that evidence that a child is vulnerable is insufficient to prove the need for anonymity; expert evidence was required. The prospect of rehabilitation must be founded on evidence rather than assertions and there was no evidence to suggest a real and immediate threat to any family members if the reporting restrictions were lifted. They submitted that the identity of the first defendant was already known in the community and went on to argue that there were strong reasons for open justice in this case which included that this was a particularly grave crime, the facts were shocking, there was a need for deterrence and that there was a strong public interest in reporting knife crime.
Refusing the application to lift the reporting restrictions, the Court placed significant weight on the age of the defendants and the fact that there was still a very substantial period until they turned 18 and the reporting restrictions lapsed. The Court confirmed that the evidence of the YJS on the impact of the reporting restrictions being lifted was evidence that could properly be taken into account in determining the application. Whilst the Court confirmed that there was evidence that the identity of the first defendant appeared to be known in the local community, it was determined that this was not a good reason to lift the reporting restrictions. Whilst the Court acknowledged that deterrence can be a ‘proper objective’ for the Court to pursue, it was determined that the media could still report the details of the offence in a way that served as a deterrent to others and in fact, there had already been significant reporting throughout the trial. The Court concluded that the welfare of both defendants outweighed the wider public interest in open justice and unrestricted reporting.
Commentary
There have recently been several high-profile cases in which reporting restrictions have been lifted and the identity of young defendants published by the media. In this case, the Court carefully considered the backgrounds of each of the defendants, their needs, rehabilitation and their welfare whilst balancing this against the need for open justice and unrestricted reporting. The Court rightly acknowledged that this was a shocking case which resulted in the tragic loss of life of a young man. The public interest in reporting this case is clear however, the Court acknowledged that this could be done without naming the defendants. It is evident that at the forefront of the Court’s mind was the welfare and rehabilitation of these children which is a step in the right direction.
This case also serves as an important reminder of the need to obtain all relevant background information about children in contact with the criminal legal system as well as:
- The importance of defence lawyers securing expert reports whenever possible
- Ensuring youth justice service reports include the credentials of the authors (e.g., social workers) and clearly set out the impact of lifting reporting restrictions on the child and their family.
- Advocating for CAMHS or psychological support professionals to endorse anonymity
- The disparity in resources: media lawyers are highly paid, while defence lawyers are paid on legal aid rates and youth justice services (YJS) in financially strained local authorities struggle to defend children.
Children in custody are considered looked after children, meaning they are entitled to the same protections as those in care. This includes the local authority's legal duty to safeguard and promote their welfare, and to provide services that would normally be available to children cared for by their own parents (as outlined in section 22a-b of the Children Act 1989). This can be used to encourage local authorities to instruct lawyers or submit separate evidence to ensure the child's welfare is prioritised, especially when their anonymity is at risk of being waived.
Principally though, it highlights the important role that the Youth Justice Service plays in the Youth Justice System. Youth Justice Officers are experts in working with children and assessing their needs and, on a daily basis, positively impact the lives of children and young people across the country.
Written by
Sabrina Neves, solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors