Week Twenty Four - Anonymity Flashcards
What is Anonymity in Criminal Cases?
Anonymity in criminal cases means someone’s name, address, photograph and other information that might identify them (such as their school or place of work) is revealed in the newspapers, on television or on the internet
In court, how is anonymity protected?
In court, anonymity is protected by reporting restrictions. There is an automatic ban on the identification of children in youth court proceedings
In the adult magistrates’ court and the Crown Court…
In the adult magistrates’ court and the Crown Court, a judge will decide whether to grant anonymity
Children…
Criminal trials will usually take place in open court with the public knowing as much as possible about the case but there are special considerations in relation to children
“Because the defendant is a child …his or her future progress may well be assisted by restricting publication.Publication could well have a significant effect on the prospects and opportunities of the young person, and, therefore, on the likelihood of effective integration into society. Identifying a defendant in the media may constitute an additional and disproportionate punishment on the child or young person. In rare cases … the child or young person may be at serious personal risk if identified.”
What must the court consider?
the welfare of the child
the child’s best interests asa primary consideration
the child’s right to privacy in legal proceedings
In civil and family proceedings…
In civil and family proceedings, the courts have a discretion to grant anonymity. The courts also have the power to grant anonymity or restrict reporting in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Anti-Social Behaviour Civil Injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders and civil injunctions.
The Angela Wrightson Case..
Angela Wrightson was a frail and highly vulnerable woman. She had lived what has been described as ‘a torrid life.’ She grew up in the care system and became ‘consumed’ by alcohol as an adult, relying on support from social services
At 39-years-old, she weighed just six and a half stone when she was battered to death inside her own home.
The girls who tormented and killed her were just 13 and 14 years old. They were both in the care system themselves - the older in a residential home, the younger being fostered. The older girl told her trial how she had drunk alcohol and taken drugs or tablets since she was 11 or 12. They were friends who had run off together a number of times before. They are both now 15. Their identities must not be revealed, because of their young age
Mr Justice Globe…
So far, your names have not been made public. An order under s.39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was made to that effect as long ago as 11 December 2014. I need to decide what should be done following your convictions.
I have been informed by the Youth Offending Team in your case F that you are on what is called “two minute visual checks”. I am sure that everything that can be done will be done to try and protect you from yourself. Nonetheless, despite the terrible thing that you have done and the sentence that must be imposed upon for it, I am concerned and disturbed by what I regard at a heightened real risk that identification followed by a press blitz will elevate the risk to your life to such an extent that I am satisfied that there is a real and immediate risk to your life if you were to be identified as one of the two girls who murdered Angela Wrightson
Having watched over this case since the middle of last year and specifically during the last few weeks of the trial, I am satisfied about you and the case that it is not in the overall interests of justice for you F to be named. I do not find the arguments quite as strong in your case D. However, I can see no justification for naming you if F is not also named. You are more robust, but not sufficiently so that it justifies identification on your own. In my judgment, you, too, remain extremely vulnerable to outside pressures. Naming you in public is one such pressure. In your case, too, I refuse the application to lift the anonymity order.
The application by the press includes the following three factors that support no anonymity…
The exceptionally grave nature of the crimes committed and the legitimate public interest in discussion of the background to these crimes
The deterrent effect of naming the defendants.
The ages of the defendants
Christopher Jefferies…
Retired teacherChristopher Jefferieswas arrested when Yeates, who rented a flat from him, was found dead on Christmas Day 2010. He was questioned for two days before being bailed by police and eliminated from the inquiry several months later. Vincent Tabak, who lived next door to Yeates in Bristol, was jailed for life in October 2011 after being convicted of her murder.
Jefferies found himself at the centre of a media frenzy after he was arrested and he laterwon libel damages from eight newspapers.
In 2013, 3 years after his arrest, he received an apology from Avon and Somerset Police
“…one of the things that I think emerged from the Leveson inquiry, was to make people realise the kind of press – at least certain sections of it – that we have in this country and how destructive they are and how amoral they are.”
