Lifelong anonymity has only been granted in six cases in England and Wales and is only ever granted for the most heinous of crimes, including murder and rape. It means that once a child criminal has reached the age of 18 and has been released from prison, they cannot be identified by law. It is usually granted to protect the individual from harm, and from potential vigilantes.
What the Law says:
Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits children under the age of 18 who are appearing in court in England and Wales, whether as a witness, defendant, or victim from being identified, except in exceptional circumstances. However, once they turn 18, their names can be released unless they have been granted anonymity under a court order. Following this, a judge can grant lifelong anonymity to an adult defendant under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This prevents the individual’s name and information from being publicised. They will be given a new identity so they can live anonymously.
Only six people in England and Wales have been granted lifelong anonymity, as it is difficult to do so; there are conditions that must be met. These conditions are set out in s.78 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They must first apply to the Justice of the Peace, who will look at the specific facts of the case and decide whether they satisfy subsections (3) to (8). These conditions include the age of the offenders, and whether there are reasonable grounds to fear intimidation or harm caused by identifying the offender.
Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, every person has the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence, so once the offenders have served their sentence for the crime, they have the right to move on.
Mary Bell:
Mary Bell was just 11 years old when she killed two young boys, aged three and four, in 1968. She was not convicted of murder, but of manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility. She was identified during the trial but given a new identity and granted lifelong anonymity when she was released from prison in 1980. In the judgment, the judge made it clear that this decision would not set a precedent for any future cases; it should be decided on an individual basis.
However, not everyone agreed that she deserved a new identity that allowed her to freely live her life. People began to seek out her identity and harassing her family. This resulted in a change to the law that offered indefinite protection for her and her family. In 2003, she was granted another new identity to protect her and her daughter until she turned 18, and then won a High Court battle to be granted lifelong anonymity for the two of them. Consequently, a court order granting lifelong anonymity is sometimes called a ‘Mary Bell order.’
The James Bulger case
One of the most well-known cases in the UK is the torture and murder of two-year-old James Bulger in 1993, by two ten-year-old killers: Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. The two boys abducted James from a shopping center in Liverpool and then proceeded to brutally abuse and eventually murder him. During their trial, the judge lifted the usual reporting restrictions which allowed the press to name the two criminals despite their age, as the ‘public interest overrode the interest of the defendants.’
When the two offenders turned 18 in 2001, they were both granted lifelong anonymity and were given new identities; a court order is in place to prohibit anyone from revealing their identities.
Venables has since been convicted and jailed for three years for possession of child pornography, leading to Bulger’s father applying for his anonymity to be lifted. However, in 2019, a judge ruled for him to keep his anonymity, to protect him from ‘serious violence’ and prevent him from being ‘put to death.’
To this day, the two offenders are living under new identities.
Angela Wrightson
Two ‘teenage torture killers’ aged 13 and 14 put a vulnerable 39-year-old, Angela Wrightson, through a five-hour ordeal in her own home, whilst posing for photos in 2014. The offenders ignored Wrightson’s pleas for help and continued to harm her and were given life sentences with a minimum term of 15 years at Leeds Crown Court in 2016. At the end of the trial, Mr. Justice Globe denied reporters from publicising the offenders, but this anonymity expired when they turned 18. An application was made from their lawyers to the High Court in 2020 to grant permanent injunctions, which prevents them from being identified in relation to the murder.
Mrs. Justice Tipples stated that their crime had caused public outrage and concluded that identifying the two offenders would lead to ‘very serious harm’ but this is an exceptional case where the balance is tipped in favour of protecting them. The case was exceptional as both offenders suffered from recognisable medical conditions which made them psychologically vulnerable. In each case where lifelong anonymity has been granted, it has been stressed that a precedent should not be set, as it is essential that each case is judged individually.
Social media complications
In recent years, with the advance of social media, it is has become more difficult for identities to be kept anonymous. Not many people are aware of the law in this area, which can lead to unintentional criminal offences being committed.
Actress Tina Malone was given a suspended prison sentence in 2018 after breaching an injunction protecting the identity of Jon Venables. She shared a Facebook message that was said to have included an image and new identity of Venables, which there is a court order against doing. Two months prior to this, Richard McKeag, and Natalie Barker, were also given suspended sentences after admitting to posting photos that identified Venables. All three individuals did not know they were doing anything wrong, although they did understand that Venables had been granted anonymity.
Should children be granted lifelong anonymity?
The three other cases in the UK in which individuals involved have been granted lifelong anonymity are; Maxine Carr in the Soham murders, The Edlington brothers who murdered two children in 2009, and ‘RXG’ who was the youngest person in the UK to be convicted of a terrorist offence at the age of 14.
In 2016, a government-commissioned review found that child criminals should be granted lifelong anonymity. This followed a suggestion from ministers who were considering the introduction of a law to indefinitely ban the media from identifying young offenders. This is to give them a chance of rehabilitation, to allow them to ‘move on’ with their lives in adulthood.
It is clear from the case law that judges do not want to set a precedent on this issue, and that it must be judged on an individual basis. It is not easy to be granted lifelong anonymity and is only given if the balance is tipped in favour of the offender's protection. Some would argue that the offenders do not deserve a second chance, but others may suggest that it is necessary to protect them from serious or fatal harm.
Comments