R v Z

An application to lift a reporting restriction protecting a juvenile defendant requires a fact-sensitive balance between the strong public interest in open justice and the welfare of the child. Being under 18 does not automatically justify anonymity. The balance may move towards publication after conviction and sentence, particularly for serious offending, but the court must still assess the likely welfare consequences of identification. Relevant consequences may include indirect identification and further harm to a child victim where the circumstances link the defendant and victim closely. A restriction may properly continue for the period permitted by statute even though it will lapse when the defendant reaches 18.

The defendant, aged 14 when she attempted to murder a 15-year-old school friend, was convicted and sentenced at Winchester Crown Court. A reporting restriction had been made under Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 45. After sentence, News Group Newspapers Ltd applied to publish the defendant’s name and photograph. The defendant opposed the application, relying on her age, vulnerability, self-harm and the likely effect of publicity on rehabilitation. The victim had developed serious psychological problems and identification of the defendant was likely to identify her indirectly. The issue was whether the existing restriction should be lifted or varied.

1. Application refused. The reporting restriction protecting the defendant’s identity was continued and was not varied.
2. Under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the court must consider whether there is a good reason to restrict identification and must have regard to the welfare of the person concerned. The statutory discretion is not automatic merely because the defendant is under 18. The court must balance the child’s welfare against the strong public interest in open justice.
3. The principles developed under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide appropriate guidance. The court should consider the reasons for naming the defendant, the defendant’s age, potential damage from identification, deterrence, open justice, the stage of proceedings and any appeal. After conviction and sentence, the balance generally shifts towards publication because the public interest in knowing the identity of a person convicted of serious crime becomes stronger.
4. That shift does not determine the outcome. The court must assess the individual facts, including evidence that publicity would damage rehabilitation or welfare. The commercial or sensational value of publication, including publication of a photograph, is not itself a relevant consideration in the statutory balance.
5. Where identification of the defendant is highly likely to identify a child victim, the risk of indirect identification is a relevant consideration. The victim’s welfare need not be treated as an independent statutory factor because, on the exceptional facts, harm to the victim would also affect the defendant’s welfare. In any event, the application would have been refused even without considering the victim’s welfare.
6. The restriction could properly remain in force until the defendant reached 18. The fact that statutory protection would then lapse did not make protection during the intervening period inappropriate.

First-instance ruling on an application by News Group Newspapers Ltd made immediately after sentence. The court refused to lift or vary the existing reporting restriction.