An unwelcome Christmas present from the High Court
07/01/2025
Court reporters challenging the anonymity of juvenile murderers have seen a string of successes across the country in recent years. Crown court judges have seemed keen to send out a message that knife crime will not be tolerated, in an effort to deter other young people from offending.
It has long been common practice among court reporters to bring their applications to challenge the anonymity - granted under s.45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999 - on the day (or shortly before) the defendant is sentenced.
This has made good practical and commercial sense for media organisations because they could piggy-back on court time which has already been allocated for the case.
But a decision of the High Court handed down just before Christmas 2024 may bring this practice to an end, as it suggests it may be a breach of the Criminal Procedure Rules, because under Part 6, the party making an application to vary or remove a reporting restriction has to give timely notice.
The case - decided on 20 December last year - concerned an anonymous 15-year-old (referred to as ‘BSW’) who had been convicted of murder in Birmingham Crown Court on 26 July 2024.
On 28 October 2024, a media application was made to lift BSW’s anonymity, citing the gravity of the offence; the potential deterrent effect of naming convicted murderers, and the fact BSW would be in custody past the age of 18, when he could be named by the press in any event.
Lawyers representing BSW requested a one-week adjournment to allow them to respond, but the judge declined and decided to lift BSW’s anonymity after concluding the importance of open justice outweighed the juvenile’s welfare considerations, pointing out there was “little evidence” in support of the contention that his development or rehabilitation in detention would be significantly harmed by his being named in the press.
But BSW’s lawyers successfully challenged that decision by way of judicial review in the High Court, where Lord Justice Jeremy Baker and Mr Justice Jay ruled the application, lodged just over three months after BSW’s conviction, was “clearly not made as soon as reasonably practicable”, as required by the Criminal Procedure Rules.
The lack of timely notice was a “procedural error” which meant the High Court judges could re-do the balancing exercise. This time, they relied on the evidence of a senior youth justice worker - which had been provided to BSW’s team subsequent to the initial decision - which persuaded them the need to rehabilitate BSW should be prioritised.
Balancing exercises are notoriously unpredictable, as different judges are entitled to take a different view of the same set of factors.
In the instance, the High Court judges concluded by underlining that under the Criminal Procedure Rules, the responsibility to give timely notice of an application to vary or remove a reporting restriction is upon the party making the application - in this case, the media outlet.
This case will provide a fertile ground for appeal for defence lawyers who seek to prevent their clients’ anonymity being lifted in the crown or magistrates courts.
To avoid the risk of being taken to the High Court, court reporters should now take all reasonable steps to flag up their intention of challenging a reporting restriction at the earliest possible stage.
Though it is fair to say that, given the fast-moving nature of news reporting means that reporters are often assigned to cases at the last minute, and that courts are under no obligation to keep journalists informed of the latest developments in a case, this decision by the High Court could place the media at a significant disadvantage when challenging reporting restrictions.
Like many an unwanted Christmas present, this is one that court reporters will not be receiving gratefully, and will want to see moved on as quickly as possible.