AddThis SmartLayers

Law Column: The Angela Wrightson case and youth anonymity

footansteylogonewThe Angela Wrightson case has not been far from the headlines in the last few weeks. Two teenage girls, both now 15 years old, have been convicted and sentenced for her brutal murder.

Last week, our law column covered the issue of contempt and the reporting restriction which prevented media organisations from posting coverage of the retrial to social media, or allowing comments on their own websites.

The other media law issue associated with the case is the anonymity which has been given to the Defendants. An order has prevented the girls from being identified since their first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court in 2014.

Upon the two girls being convicted, media organisations applied for the order to be lifted, so that the girls could be identified. Mr Justice Globe, the trial Judge, refused the application and the order remains in place.

In giving his reasons for refusing the application, the Judge put a great deal of weight on the welfare of the girls, and the fact that one of them in particular had made four attempts to kill herself, two of which took place in the Court building. He noted that had the girls been “stable, strong-minded defendants”, the decision may well have been different.

Whilst the Judge noted the public interest in naming the girls, he rejected the argument that naming the girls would act as a deterrent to others – he reasoned that the crime was so serious and rare that the naming of the girls would add little to the fact that the perpetrators had been convicted and sentenced for the crime.

It is accepted ground that the welfare of the juvenile should be given a lot of weight in circumstances such as this, and the Judicial College Guidance (‘Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts’) emphasises the point.

Upon the juvenile being convicted, the weight can adjust in favour of them being named, although this is not automatic. Facts such as the seriousness of the offence, the impact of the crime upon the community, the public interest in identifying the defendant, and the deterrent effect are also often considered. In this case, Mr Justice Globe felt that nothing outweighed what he considered to be the real risk to the girls’ welfare.

So, how does this decision sit when compared to the decisions to name William Cornick (who murdered school teacher Ann Maguire when he was 15), and James Bulger’s killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson?

In the case of William Cornick, the Judge cited a “clear deterrent effect” when deciding to name him. It was also noted that naming Cornick would add to the public debate about safety of teachers in schools, among other things. In resisting the lifting of the anonymity order in Cornick’s case, his defence barrister argued that Cornick’s life would be at risk from suicide or other inmates, if he was named. However, the order was still lifted.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (both 10 when they murdered James Bulger) were named when they were convicted of abduction and murder in 1993, but upon release in 2001, were given new identities. An injunction was also put in place in 2001 to prevent them from being identified because of what was deemed to be a real risk to their lives if their identities became known.

So, the only answer is that cases involving the anonymity of juvenile defendants who are convicted of very serious crimes are decided on the precise circumstances of the case, and by different judges, albeit whilst applying the same principles. This results in different decisions.

Whether the decision in the current case is right or wrong, it is frustrating from a media point of view because there is lack of continuity between cases and an unwanted curtailment of freedom of expression.