'Considerable risk of press intrusion and harassment, public stigma
and ostracism'
Extracts from the judgment
The child killer Mary Bell and her teenage daughter today won their
High Court bid for lifelong anonymity. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family Division, heard
that disclosure of 46-year-old Bell's current identity and whereabouts
would lead to harassment. She said: "Exceptionally, I shall therefore grant injuntions contra
mundum to protect the anonymity of X (Bell) and Y (the daughter)."
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss said: “Children who kill have a
fascination for the public. It is the negation of all we would like to
believe childhood should be. “We like to live with the illusion of childhood innocence and the
reality is both shocking and intriguing. “Each time a child killer is tried or is the subject of publicity,
the press tend to refer to earlier, similar cases.” But the order was
not to be taken as breaking new ground or opening the door to similar
claims. Nor was it “a broadening of the principles of the law of confidence
nor an increase in the pool of those who might in the future be granted
protection against potential breaches of confidence.”
The injunctions were granted for different reasons than those behind
her similar decision in the case of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables,
the boys who killed James Bulger. But all three cases were exceptional.
With Thompson and Venables, the order was granted after hearing that the
youths faced a real risk of harm from revenge attacks. With Mary Bell,
the judge had to weigh the human rights claims of article eight, the
right to privacy, against article ten, freedom of expression.
There were no other similar cases.
Despite media interest, Bell had been able to live a largely settled
life in the community, although there had been changes of identity and
moves. She had now lived in the community for 23 years and she and her
partner had brought up her daughter, who had developed into a “charming
and well-balanced girl”.
The judge accepted that they were at “considerable risk of press
intrusion and harassment, public stigma and ostracism” if their
identities were disclosed.
Bell, she added, was a “vulnerable personality with mental health
problems” and the prospect of such intrusion had already had an adverse
effect upon her health. “Although X killed these two small children 35 years ago, the case
remains of interest to the press and, apparently, to the public,” she
said.
It was highly relevant that Bell was so young at the time of the
killings and that she had herself suffered to an extent that the jury
brought in a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished
responsibility. “She was a damaged child and the effects of her abusive
experiences have remained with her.”
She remained on lifelong licence and was liable to be recalled to
prison for any offences committed.
Dame Elizabeth said that, according to the claimants, only about 20
people, other than those who needed to know, knew the family’s
identities and whereabouts.
By Frances Gibb
22 May 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-688309,00.html
home
|