CARDIFF SCHOOL OF LAW AND POLITICS

SUMMATIVE COURSEWORK SUBMISSION

COVER SHEET:
UG and PGT

Student number:

Module code:

C1265294
CL5318

Module title:

Media Law (30)

Module tutor:

Julie Doughty

Coursework title:

Word count:
The word count does not
include footnotes, bibliography
or list of references.

Childrenandyoungpeoplewhoaredirectly

andindirectlyaffectedbycriminalcourt
proceedingsaresufficientlyprotectedfrom
theeffectsofmediapublicity.Discussthis
statementwithspecificreferencetorelevant
cases.

2134

OpenJusticeisoneofmainpointsoftheadministrationofjusticeintheUnited
Kingdom.Casesareheardinopencourtssothepubliccanaccessandthemediacan
freelyreportoncourtproceedings.Thisiseffectiveinholdingthecourtstoaccount,
makingsurethatproceduresareconductedfairly,makingcourtscompatiblewiththe
HumanRightsAct19981andtheECHR2.Theexceptiontoopenjusticeiswithinthe
protectionofchildren.LordDiplockbelievesthecourtsshouldbemoreopenthan
whattheycurrentlyaretomaintainpublicconfidenceinthecourts3.Therehave
beendebatesaroundthetightrestrictionsimposedonchildrenincriminal
proceedings.InthecontextoftheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights,thereisa
tensionbetweenrightstofreedomofexpressionandtherightstorespectprivatelife4.
Somejournalistsbelieverestrictionsonchildrenshouldnotbesowide.Examining
caselaw,statuteandacademiccommentary,thisessaywillexplorewhetherchildren
aresufficientlyprotectedfromthemedia.
Firstly,courtshavetocomplywithsection44oftheChildrenandYoungPeopleAct5,
whichmeansthattheyareobligatedtoregardthewelfareofallchildreninvolvedin
casesbyrestrictingmediareportingandkeepingthepublicoutofcourt.
ChildWitnesses
Therearespecialprovisionsthatprotectchildwitnesses,asthesechildrenareaffected
justasmuchasdefendantsandclaimants.Sections21and22oftheYouthJusticeand
CriminalEvidenceAct6protectwitnesseswithspecialmeasure.Thisissovulnerable
childwitnessescangiveevidencebehindascreenorvialinktomakethemfeelmore
comfortableandprotected.SomecriticshavestatedthiscouldconflictwithArticle67
inthatitisagainsttherightoffairtrial,howeverprecedentintheHouseofLordsin
Camberwell8showsthatthisisnotthecaseanditisthenormforchildwitnessesgive
evidenceinthiswayandthereforesufficientlyprotected.Thisalsoextendstoadult
courtsinsexualoffenceswherechildrengivenevidencewillhavetheiranonymity

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

S.6 HRA 1998

Article 10 ECHR
AG v Leveller Magazine (1979) AC440 at 449-450 per Lord Diplock
Article 8 European Convention of Human Rights
S.44 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Article 6 ECHR
R v Camberwell Youth Court ex P and Others [2005] UKHL

protected9andthepublic,butnotthemedia,canbeexcludedtomakethechildmore
comfortable10andopenjusticeisstillpreserved.
NamingandShaming
Section47(CYPA)excludesthepublicandallowsrepresentativesofthemediatobe
presentinyouthcourts.Thisistomakethecourtlessdraconianandintimidating.
Section4911imposesanautomaticreportingrestrictioninyouthcourtsofpublishing
anythingthatrevealsnames,address,schooloranythingthatsinglesoutthe
identificationofachildconcerned(witness,defendantorvictim).Therearegeneral
exceptionstothisrule,ifitisinthepublicinteresttolifttherestriction12.Itisrarefor
acourttoliftarestrictioninyouthproceedingsregardingadefendant.Inthe
Mckerry13case,thecourtliftedaban,butspecificallystatedthatindoingsoitwasnot
forpurposelynamingandshamingtheindividual14,andnotanextrapunishment,
howeverthecourtsfeltinthiscaseonthefactsthatitwasinthepublicsinterestto
lifttherestrictions,thiswasfollowedinPearl15.CourtswillalsoliftordersofS39to
actasadeterrentasfirstseeninLee16whichwasthenfollowedintheCoronation
StreetKiller17,thiswastoactasadeterrentasthiswasasocialpolicyissuetowarn
parentsonnotlettingtheirchildrentocomeintoclosecontactwithgraphicmaterial.
AsboscontributedtothethreatofChildrensprotectionfromthemediawhowere
abletofreelyreportasshowninthecaseofStAlbans18.Howeversincethen,theUK
hasenactedtheCriminalEvidenceAct1999(YJCEA)19thatprotectsthechildren
fromnotbeingexposedtointimidationorhumiliation.Thishelpedpreventnaming
andshamingindividualsinsomecasesfromtheresultoftheCrimeandDisorderAct
introducedbythelabourgovernment20.Thecourtsmustbecarefulinnamingthe
individualasitcanbedetrimentaltotherehabilitationoftheoffenderandaffecttheir
integrationintosocietybeingstigmatised.SpencerarguesthattheUKshouldadopta
moreGermanstyledapproachwherewesupressthenamesofchildrenincourts
totally21.Itisalsoimportanttohighlightthatthesestatutoryprovisiondonottendto
extendtodefendantswhowereayouthatthetimeoftrialwhothenturn1822.There
9 S.39 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
10 S.37 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
11 S.49 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
12 Section 49(4A) CYPA 1933
13 Mckerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices {2000} EMLR
14 [2000] EMLR 127 per Lord Bingham
15 Pearl v Kings Lynn Justices [2005]
16 R v Lee (Anothony William) (a minor) [1993] 1 WLR 103
17 Coronation Street Killer was fascinated by horror DVDs and
violent games from age eight by Andy Dolan and Jill Reilly, Daily
Mail, 2 April 2012
18 R (on the application of T) v St Albans Crown Court; Chief
Constable of Surrey v JHG [2002] EWHC 1129
19 Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA)
20 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s1
21 Spencer 2000 p468

hasbeensomecriticismastoifthesesectionsprotectchildrenontheirrouteto
adulthood.ThiswasdiscussedinRvCCC23wheresection39ceasedtoapply
However,ithasbeenarguedthatthisisnottheintentionfromtheUKcourts.These
rulesshouldbeindefiniteunlessexpressedotherwise24.Howeveritseemsthatthe
maincriticismoftheseactsisthattheambitofprotectiondoesnotfulfilthe
integrationoftheyouthbackintosociety.SullivanJinNorthEastPress25supports
thiswiththeactwasprotectionofpublicityduringthecurrencyofyouth,not
adulthood.NigelStonegivesweightagainstthisandstatesthatthecourtsdonotdo
enoughforchildreninthisinstance,usingpublicdebateanddeterrenceonthebasisof
identifyingachildisdeemedwrong;
obviousconsequenceofpublishingachildsnamewilldemonisenotonlyhechild,
butalsomembersofhisfamily26.
Publicinterestshouldnotoverrulethepersonaldevelopmentofachildintheir
rehabilitationandimpedetheirpathtoadulthood.Inthisarea,thelawdoesnot
sufficientlyprotectchildrenintheirroutetobecomingandadult,theyshouldbeable
toleavethepastbehindthem27.

LifelongAnonymityOrders

22 T v Director of Public Prosecutions and North East Press [2003]

EWHC 3410
23 R(ontheapplicationofJCandRT)vTheCentralCriminalCourt[2014]EWHC
1041
24 The Standing Committee on Youth Justice (SCYJ,2014) has
asserted that until now, media organisations have generally
respected that once a reporting restriction is given, it continues
beyond the child turning 18TheStandingCommitteeonYouthJustice(SCYJ,2014)has
assertedthatuntilnow,mediaorganisationshavegenerallyrespectedthatonceareportingrestriction
isgiven,itcontinuesbeyondthechildturning18,ifthecasehadconcludedbeforethen

25 T v Director of Public Prosecutions & North East Press Ltd [2003]

EWHC (Admin) 2408
26 Nigel Stone naming child defendants; in the public
interest?,Youth Justice 2015, Vol.15,93103
27 Nigel Stone naming child defendants; in the public
interest?,Youth Justice 2015, Vol.15,93103

Thereisapossibilitythatinachildmurdercase,peopleinvolvedinproceedingsmay
beabletobegrantedlifelonganonymity.ThiswasfirstdecidedintheMaryBell
case28whereaninjunctionwasgrantedforherselfandherdaughter.Thiswasbecause
theirarticle8rightswouldhavebeenbreachedifanyoneweretofindoutwhothey
were.Itwasarguedthatthedaughterwasnotinvolvedintheproceedingsatthetime
MaryBellmurderedtheboyshowevertheyweretoocloselylinkedtoidentifyanyof
them.ThiswasalsofollowedinthecaseofthekillingofJohnBulgercase29.Inthese
seriouscasesinvolvingchildren,arenotheldasprecedent.Thesewouldbeextremely
extenuatingcircumstancesduetothepublichatredtowardsthesekillers.Itwouldbe
extremelyrareforajudgetogiveachildlifelonganonymityasmostorders
concerninglegalproceedingsarepartedwithonceachildturns18.

Section39Orders
Discretionarys39ordershavebeenseentobeproblematicforreporters,asitdoesnot
giveguidanceonwhatcanbepublished30.Defendantsusuallytrytousethisprovision
whens49expiresorwhenorifachildistriedinacourtotherthanayouthone.
However,anonymityshouldnotbeextended,asthecourtswillnottendtousethis
provisionforpeoplewhoarenotwithinthesphereofthecaseasablanket
protection31.Thishasleadtoharshoutcomesinthepast,inRvCentralIndependent
Television32wherethechildinvolvedinthecasewasprotectedbutthedaughterofthe
accusedwasseenastooremotetobeincluded.Thisisanexampleofnotsufficiently
protectingchildrenwithincourtsasthiscouldhaveledtoherbeingstigmatisedor
intimidatedinhercommunity.Thereiscontroversysurroundingthisareaaspresented
inGodwincase33wherethejudgetriedtorestrictthenamesoftwodefendants,as
exposingthemcouldleadtothechildsidentificationhoweverwasnotabletodueto
itbeingoutofthescopeoftheprovision34.Thechilddidntevenhaveanonymity
undertheSexualOffencesact35.Thiswasanotherexampleofinsufficientlyprotecting
children.Therewereotheroffencesotherthanrapethatcouldbereportedonsoitwas
notpossibletokeepheroutofthepress.Thejudgetriedrevisitsection39to
defendantsagaininTeeside36wherethecourtstriedtogopastthescopeofthesection
onceagainandsparkadiscussionaboutconflictionofhumanrights.Ithasbeen
difficulttobalancetherightsofarticles8and10whenproceedingsconcernchildren.
28 X CC v A(1985) 1 All ER 53 (Re X (a minor)
29 Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2001)
30 Briffett v DDP [2001] EWCH 841
31 Chief Constable of Surrey v JHG and DHG [2002] EWCH 1129 per
Lord Justice Elias sadly, in any case where someone caught up in the criminal
process other members of the family who are wholly innocent.. but I do not consider that in
the normal case that it is relevant factor or good reason for granting a direction under
section 39

32 R v Central Independent Television [1994]

33 R v Southwark Crown Court ex P Godwin {1991) 3 ALL ER 818
34 s159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
35 Section 1 Sexual Offences Act 1992
36 R (Gazette Media Company) v Teeside Crown Court [2005] EWCA
Crim 1983

InGazette37thejournalistsbelievedthatthebanonreportingwascontrarytofreedom
ofthepresshoweveritwasnecessarytoprotectthevictimsrighttoprivatelife.
Academicsbelievedthats.12oftheHRA38highlightedtheimportanceofarticle10
andFenwickhasarguedthatwhen8and10conflicteditshouldbearticle10thatwas
upheld39thiswaswhatthecourtsinterpretedinTeesideeventhoughS12holdsno
articlehasprecedenceovertheother.Thisledtoanundesirableinterpretationinthe
case,butledtoamorebalancesdistinctionlaterinReS40(achild)wherethebalance
ofrightswasequalled,thiscaseseenthefathertriedtouseasection39orderforthe
deceasedbrotherandmother.HoweveritdidlaydowntheprincipleinCampbell41
thateverycaseshouldbebasedonthefactsandthatnoarticlewillbechosenoverthe
other.IfGodwinweretobedecidedtoday,asthegirlwasdirectlyinvolvedinthe
proceedings,itlookslikethatshewouldbeabletorelyonArticle8.Thisareoflawis
scepticalasitisbasedonthejudgesinterpretationofthearticles42andthemedia
secondguesstheboundariesofsection39,theywillbepunished,butthechilds
identityisalreadyinthepublicdomainandthiscanbeharmful.Notenoughhasbeen
donetosufficientlyprotectchildreninthecourtsinthisarea,thelawismoving
forwardasitisnowestablishedthearticleswillbeconsiderednomorethantheother,
howevertheoutcomeinReSstillfavouredarticle10andthecourtsarestillnot
strikingtherightbalanceandweneedtomoveawayfromtherulinginGazetteto
protectchildrenfromuncertainty.

37 R (Gazette Media Company) v Teeside Crown Court [2005] EWCA

Crim 1983
38 s.12 Human Rights Act 1998
39 H.Fenwick Clashing the Rights, Welfare of the child and the
Human Rights Act (2004) at 889
40 Re S (a child) (identification: Restrictions on Publication) {2004}
UKHL 47
41 Campbell v MGM Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
42 V Bettinson and AA Gillespie, Preventing secondary Victimisation
Through Anonymity [2007] 70(1) MLR 126

Bibliography
Statutes
Section 1 Sexual Offences Act 1992
s159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
s.12 Human Rights Act 1998
Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA)
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s1
Children and Young Persons Act 1933
European Convention of Human Rights Articles 6, 8 and 10
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Journals
V Bettinson and AA Gillespie, Preventing secondary victimisation
through anonymity [2007] 70(1) Modern Law Review
H.Fenwick Clashing the Rights, Welfare of the child and the Human
Rights Act (2004)
Spencer 2000 p468

Cases
- Campbell v MGM Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
- Re S (a child) (identification: Restrictions on Publication) {2004}
UKHL 47
- R (Gazette Media Company) v Teeside Crown Court [2005] EWCA
Crim 1983
- R v Southwark Crown Court ex P Godwin {1991) 3 ALL ER 818
- R v Central Independent Television [1994]
- Briffett v DDP [2001] EWCH 841
- Chief Constable of Surrey v JHG and DHG [2002] EWCH 1129
- Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2001)
- T v Director of Public Prosecutions & North East Press Ltd [2003]
EWHC (Admin) 2408
- X CC v A(1985) 1 All ER 53 (Re X (a minor)
- AG v Leveller Magazine (1979) AC440
- Mckerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices {2000} EMLR
- Pearl v Kings Lynn Justices [2005]
- R v Lee (Anothony William) (a minor) [1993] 1 WLR 103
- R (on the application of T) v St Albans Crown Court; Chief
Constable of Surrey v JHG [2002] EWHC 1129
- T v Director of Public Prosecutions and North East Press [2003]
EWHC 3410
R(ontheapplicationofJCandRT)vTheCentralCriminalCourt[2014]EWHC
1041
GovernmentReports
- The Standing Committee on Youth Justice (SCYJ,2014)

NewspaperReports
Coronation Street Killer was fascinated by horror DVDs and violent
games from age eight by Andy Dolan and Jill Reilly, Daily Mail, 2
April 2012