Naming and shaming: violation of privacy

Newspapers across the UK are successfully challenging the courts to lift reporting restrictions in cases involving young people. PJ White investigates the impact this is having on young people's lives.

"Wildcat, 14, goes berserk in court," screamed The Sun headline. "Drink driving Miss Crazy," reported the Daily Mirror. The papers were referring to the case of a 14-year-old girl who lashed out at a prosecutor and a magistrate in court after receiving a conviction for drink-driving. A blurred-out photo of the girl throwing an egg accompanied the articles, which included details about her name, where she lived and her previous convictions.

The case was just one recent example of a court agreeing to lift reporting restrictions on young offenders and young people served with antisocial behaviour orders. John Hawkins, a youth offending team manager in East Sussex, has worked in youth justice for 25 years and says he has never seen so many pictures of young people in newspapers. "I'm not sure if it's a conspiracy," says Hawkins. "But, bit by bit, the protection that it was always felt young people require, by virtue of their age and vulnerability, has been stripped away."

There seems to be a powerful public appetite for the "naming and shaming" of young offenders, fed mainly by newspapers that argue lifting the restrictions is in the public interest. Yet as the then Home Office minister Hazel Blears reminded the Commons last year, it has been an established principle in British law since 1933 (see box, p15) that juvenile defendants should not have their identity made public in criminal cases. It only happens when the court feels that the public interest requires it. Removing restrictions is not routine and each case is considered on its own merits.

Restrictions lifted

Local newspapers around the country are actively challenging those decisions. Manchester Evening News, Bolton Evening News and Newbury Weekly News among others have all been successful in the past year in challenging the reporting restrictions in cases involving young people. James Higgins, news editor at the Bolton Evening News, argues that it is "no punishment" to be found guilty in court but to remain anonymous. "You only get an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) if you are a persistent scourge of society," he says. "People need to know if you are breaking the ASBO."

Higgins candidly admits that the news value shoots up if a young person can be named. Reporting what happened to a youth "who for legal reasons cannot be named" is not much of a news story, he says. Naming them, with a catalogue of their offences and a photograph, hits the front page. That commercial reality leads Hawkins to question whether the journalistic motivation is to shame people into behaving better or to sell more newspapers.

There is no doubt about the local press's satisfaction when it is able to name and shame. Variations on headlines such as "journalist gets reporting ban overturned" are triumphantly reported in the industry's trade publication Press Gazette. They cover a wide range, from serious crimes, where a custodial sentence is given, to persistent minor offences. One youth offending team worker, who prefers not to be named, has direct experience of the damage done to young people by labelling them as criminals. He was working closely with a young woman aged 17 who received an ASBO. At the request of the local authority, reporting restrictions were not imposed. Restrictions were also lifted regarding the offences that were linked to her being issued with the order. "She was a young woman with a history of depression and self-harm," he says. "In one report I described her as 'self-loathing'. She was very vulnerable." People living in the same hostel recognised her from the newspaper reports and began to comment. "She became depressed and lost her place at the hostel and was homeless over Christmas," says the Northwest-based worker. "It took a huge amount of work to rescue that situation."

Last year, Rod Morgan, chair of the Youth Justice Board, cited a similar example at the other end of the country. Giving evidence to a Home Affairs Committee, he said he had visited a youth offending team in Brighton where a local psychiatrist told him of a 16-year-old girl with "substantial mental health problems" who had been made the subject of an ASBO and breached it. "She received two-page coverage in the local paper and the psychiatrist informed me it was impossible to arrange housing and support for her," said Morgan.

Lack of evidence

There is no objective evidence to support or contradict Hawkins' belief that the protection that used to be given to young people is disappearing. A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said no statistics are collected on the incidence of reporting restrictions being lifted in youth courts. Anecdotal evidence gained from asking for opinions from court managers shows a mixed picture. Some felt there had been no increase, and the incidence was still rare; others felt more under pressure. But in one court area there was no doubt that magistrates' and youth courts are considering the applications much more frequently.

Ann Flintham, communications manager at the Magistrates' Association and herself a long-standing magistrate, thinks the pressure to lift reporting restrictions is probably increasing. She has various concerns. "Quite often it makes that person a local hero," she says, referring to the badge of honour argument. She also recalls a recent case where just one young family member "went off the rails". She was very concerned about the potential to stigmatise brothers and sisters. "If that young person had been named, the two younger children would have suffered," she says.

Mounting pressure

John Fassenfelt, chair of the Youth Courts Committee of the Magistrates' Association, agrees there has been a slight shift in mood, though he says magistrates are still very reluctant to name children and young people in criminal cases. ASBOs are different though, since letting the public know can be a way of monitoring the order. On balance, Fassenfelt's personal view is that young offenders should not be named, mainly because he too thinks it gives them credibility. Fassenfelt believes magistrates can be criticised for not giving full details when they decide to deny the lifting of reporting restrictions. "Just saying 'in the interests of justice' isn't enough. A magistrate should say they've made a decision because they are young, vulnerable, in care, or it is a first offence." Children's rights campaigners are convinced young people's privacy rights are violated whenever reporting restrictions are removed. Carolyne Willow, national co-ordinator of the Children's Rights Alliance for England, believes the practice is "abhorrent". Her organisation is leading a campaign to reinstate reporting restrictions through amendments to the police and justice bill. Willow's critique of the Government in supporting naming is blunt. "The only purpose I can see is to get free publicity for its crackdown on antisocial behaviour. And it is all at the expense of vulnerable young people."

CONNOR'S STORY

Connor was just 12 years old when he was served with an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) by the council. It barred him from various activities, including aggressive behaviour, spitting and drinking alcohol. The council distributed leaflets and posters around his home town. They showed his photograph and his alleged offences. "It's shocking. It gives kids a bad name," says Connor, now 13. After the ASBO was served in January, Connor saw himself featured in headlines in his local paper. "I was the first one round here to have my face on posters round the town." One result has been hostility and abuse from others. "My little sister was picked on," says Connor. His mother confirms that the eight-year-old was taunted and slapped in the playground. There has also been abuse from strangers. "One day someone shouted from a van, 'There goes the ASBO family'," he says. After the ASBO was served, Connor rarely went out. When he did, neighbours rang police to say that he was seen out and about. This was true. But he wasn't in breach of the order, which specified a number of barred behaviours, but not being outside. The court was told there were 40 offences, which Connor disputes. "It was all word of mouth. I hadn't been arrested," he says. Connor is also disturbed that publicity could attract paedophiles. "They showed the number of our house on telly," he says.

Names and some details have been changed

REPORTING RESTRICTIONS

It is a general rule that offenders aged under 18 should not be identified. This is an exception to the principle that justice must be done in public
The general public are not admitted to youth courts. Members of the press are, but only on condition that they do not print any details that might lead to the identification of the young person
Young offenders' anonymity is enshrined in section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 magistrates can waive reporting restrictions in the public interest. Official guidance suggests lifting restrictions might be justified where offending is persistent or serious, or where alerting others might help prevent further offending
The situation is different with antisocial behaviour orders. In these civil cases, there is no automatic ban on identifying young people involved. But magistrates can impose reporting restrictions. Local authorities or newspapers may challenge such a restriction
What happens if an ASBO is breached? Are identities protected because it then becomes a criminal case? The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 removed automatic reporting restrictions on breach proceedings involving under-18s. A court may still impose restrictions, but has to give reasons for its decision.

17 May 2006

http://www.ypnmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=full_news&ID=10365

home / Previous viewpoint