C v Winchester Crown Court

When deciding whether to lift or vary a child offender's anonymity order under Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the court must balance the public interest in identification against the offender's rehabilitation, welfare and interest in anonymity. Serious offending and any deterrent value in publication do not automatically outweigh those countervailing interests. Particular weight may be required where publication would substantially impede the rehabilitation of a person who remains under 18, while the additional public benefit from identification is modest.

The claimant, aged 17, had been convicted of kidnapping and sexual assault upon a child. A Recorder varied a reporting-restriction order made under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 so that the claimant could be identified publicly, while preserving the victim's anonymity.

Following the dismissal of his appeal against conviction, the claimant sought judicial review of the variation. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review a post-sentence order lifting anonymity and whether the Recorder had lawfully balanced the public interest in publication against the claimant's rehabilitation, welfare and anonymity.

1. The claim for judicial review was allowed. The court granted permission, quashed the Recorder's variation order and held that the original section 39 order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 remained in force.
2. The court had jurisdiction. It accepted the conclusion in R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte H and D [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 262 that an order lifting anonymity after verdict and sentence is collateral to the trial on indictment and is therefore amenable to judicial review. The contrary jurisdiction ruling in R v Winchester Crown Court ex parte B [2000] 1 Cr.App.R 11 no longer applied.
3. On the merits, the court applied the relevant publication factors identified in R (Y) v Aylesbury Crown [2012] EWHC 1140 Admin. It had to balance the public interest in identifying a person convicted of serious offences against the public interest in effective rehabilitation and the claimant's interest in anonymity. The claimant remained under 18, and the court was required to have regard to his welfare.
4. The Recorder had materially underestimated the harm that publication would cause. The claimant's fellow prisoners and local community did not then know the nature of the offences or his identity as the offender. Publication would spread that information and make rehabilitation substantially harder. The Recorder's second reason for publication could not withstand analysis, and the remaining public benefit in naming a young man whose conviction was already publicly known was only modest. Those considerations were outweighed by the powerful interest in rehabilitation.

• Divisional Court: Permission to apply for judicial review was granted. The claim succeeded and the Recorder's order varying the reporting restriction was quashed.
• Earlier criminal appeal: Before these proceedings, the same two judges had dismissed the claimant's appeal against conviction. The citation and date of that decision were not stated in the judgment.