In this high-profile case, the Crown Court accepted the media’s application to lift reporting restrictions in relation to a 15-year-old defendant convicted of murder.
Details
On 3 February 2025, MUK (a boy) fatally stabbed another boy in the central courtyard of the school of which they both attended. Both boys were 15 at the time of the incident.
Subsequently MUK was arrested and tried in the Crown Court at Sheffield. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On 8 August 2025, he was convicted of murder and of having an article with a blade on school premises.
Reporting Restrictions
Following MUK’s conviction of the murder of HW, the Crown Court received four separate written applications from press organisations for an excepting direction seeking to lift the reporting restrictions relating to MUK. This followed an earlier order made under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (the ‘1999 Act’) prohibiting the publication of any information if it was likely to lead members of the public to identify MUK as a person concerned in the proceedings.
The Judge noted that she must consider whether “it is in the interests of justice” to lift the reporting restrictions.
The starting point was considering the welfare of MUK. A Youth Justice Officer was called to speak to the impact of lifting the reporting restrictions on MUK’s welfare. The judge found that no clear or cogent evidence had been provided to demonstrate how public identification would adversely affect MUK, noting that the Youth Justice Officer’s submissions were speculative and highly generalised, amounting to no more than a generic assertion that publication would harm his rehabilitation.
The Youth Justice Officer also submitted that the publication of MUK’s name could result in the targeting of MUK’s family. This argument was rejected by the judge on the basis that the purpose of section 45 was not to protect adult family members of a convicted defendant, and, in any event, the identity of his family members would likely already be known in the wider community, and, realistically, will become known, at the latest, by the time that he reaches the age of 18 and the section 45 restrictions relating to him expire.
The principles applicable to applications for an exempting direction were summarised in R v KL [2021] EWCA Crim 200 ([66] and [67]).
The judge then considered whether the making of an exempting direction was in the public interest. She noted that “the public will wish to know the identity of a person who commits such a serious offence, in seeking to understand how it is that a child of that age can do so. Knife crime in general and the circumstances of this particular case are matters of substantial public interest.”.
The Judge noted that “rare as the lifting of a reporting restriction may be, I bear in mind the strong presumption, when a juvenile is tried on indictment in the Crown Court, that justice takes place in open court and that the press may report the proceedings. I bear in mind that, following conviction, the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process falls away as a consideration and that [MUK] has been found guilty of murder, whilst also bearing firmly in mind that an excepting direction granted under section 45(5) must not be granted by reason only of the fact that the proceedings have been determined in any way.”
The judge was satisfied that the balance between the important competing interests in this case was in favour of granting an exemption direction in relation to Boy A, under both sub-section 45(4) and sub-section 45(5) of the 1999 Act.
The child in question was sentenced to detention during his majesty’s pleasure for a minimum term of 15 years and 106 days (16 years less the number of days spent on remand) on 22nd October 2025. His name and image was widely publicised in connection with the case and sentence received.
Commentary
This decision follows a pattern of concerning decisions to lift reporting decisions, underscoring the need for practitioners to present clear, child-focused and evidence-based submissions. In line with guidance from the YJLC Legal Guide Reporting restrictions for children in criminal cases, youth justice professionals should prepare early for potential media applications, ensure children and families understand the limits of anonymity protections, and put safeguarding and media-harm mitigation measures in place where identification is at risk.