Other

Debate: Should a judge have named Luke Walmsley's killer?

1 min read
Despite pleas from the barrister defending the 16-year-old who murdered Lincolnshire schoolboy Luke Walmsley, Mr Justice Goldring decided to identify Alan Pennell, saying that there was a strong and legitimate public interest

NO - CAROLYNE WILLOW, NATIONAL CO-ORDINATOR, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ALLIANCE FOR ENGLAND

The reporting of juveniles is in clear breach of international law. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice give under-18s the right to privacy at all stages of legal proceedings. These standards are designed to protect children from public hostility and, more importantly, to assist their rehabilitation. There can be no justification for making a public spectacle of children.

YES - MARK NAYLOR, COURT REPORTER, THE GRIMSBY TELEGRAPH, WHICH APPLIED TO HAVE REPORTING RESTRICTIONS LIFTED

Mr Justice Goldring said there were "good reasons" to lift the Section 39 order. There was "legitimate public interest" and nothing in psychological and psychiatric reports suggested particular damage would be caused. The judge rejected claims that the case was like that of Jamie Bulger's killers, because they were much younger. Most important was to deter other young people thinking they could commit murder and hide behind the cloak of anonymity.

Register Now to Continue Reading

Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:

What's Included

  • Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month

  • Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector

Register

Already have an account? Sign in here


More like this

Hertfordshire Youth Workers

“Opportunities in districts teams and countywide”

Administration Apprentice

SE1 7JY, London (Greater)