Kirklees Council v P & Ors
[2023] EWHC 3470 (Fam)
R v BGI & Anor
31 July 2024
[2024] EWCR 5
Crown Court
Two 12-year-olds were convicted of murder. A news outlet wanted their names released, but the judge said no. The judge thought it was more important to protect the children's mental health and chances of rehabilitation than to let everyone know their names, even though the crime was very serious.
Key Facts
- •Two 12-year-old defendants (BGI and CMB) convicted of the murder of Shawn Seesahai.
- •Reporting restrictions were in place since November 2023 under section 45(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
- •Media organizations applied for an excepting direction under section 45(4) and (5) of the 1999 Act to lift the reporting restrictions.
- •The prosecution and defense opposed the application.
- •Pre-sentence reports provided detailed information about the defendants' backgrounds and vulnerabilities.
- •The court considered the welfare of the defendants, open justice, and freedom of expression.
Legal Principles
Balancing exercise weighing child welfare against open justice and freedom of expression.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, sections 45(4), 45(5), 45(6), and 52; R v KL [2021] QB 831.
Removal of restrictions is rare due to the weight given to child welfare; exercised with "very great care, caution and circumspection."
R v KL [2021] QB 831.
Defendants must adduce "clear and cogent evidence" to justify anonymity; assessment based on specific facts, not generalities.
R v KL [2021] QB 831; R (Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2023] 2 Cr App R 15.
Weight of factors may shift after conviction; greater weight on public interest in knowing identity of serious offenders, but child's rehabilitation remains crucial.
R v Winchester Crown Court [1999] 1 WLR 788.
Outcomes
Application refused for both defendants.
Defendants' welfare outweighs public interest in open justice; pre-sentence reports showed significant vulnerabilities and potential detrimental impact on mental health and rehabilitation if named. The court acknowledged the gravity of the crime and public interest in reporting knife crime but found that the welfare of the 12-year-old defendants outweighed these considerations.
Pre-sentence reports deemed sufficient evidence.
The court accepted the social workers' assessment of the likely impact on the defendants' mental health and rehabilitation, concluding that their evidence was sufficient to outweigh the public interest in open justice.