Preventing Secondary Victimisation Through Anonymity

Date01 January 2007
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00628.x
Published date01 January 2007
CASES
Preventing SecondaryVictimisationThrough Anonymity
Alisdair A. Gillespie and Vanessa Bettinson
n
This note examines the decision of the Courtof Appeal in R (Gazette Media Company Ltd) vTeesside
CrownCourt
1
where the Courtwas asked to rule on the legalityof an order under s.39, Childrenand
Youn g Pers on s Act 1933 purporting toban the identity of the victimand defendants in a prosecution.
The factsof the prosecution are set out belowbut the interesting issues that arise fromthis decision
come notso much from the facts and decision (whichwas, to an extent, inevitable)but rather from
the fact thatthe current law does not,i nour opinion, adequately protect children fromsecondary
victimisation andthat the courts have erred intheir current understanding of the legal position.
SUMMARYOF THE FACTS
The appeal was brought u nder s.159, CriminalJustice Act 1988 which permits an
aggrieved person an appeal againsta ruli ngby a trial judge restrictingthe publica-
tion of details surrounding atrial on indictment.The relevant trial concerned two
men, known as S and L, who had been chargedwith one count alleging conspi-
racy to commit rape and also counts in respect of the making and distribution of
indecent photographs of a child.The conspiracy related to the suggestion that L
could have sex with S’s daughter whilst S watched. The indecent photographs
related to images that S had taken of his daughter and which he had sent to L.
The trial judge, the Recorder of Middlesbrough, made a n order under s.39 of
the 1933 Act in the following terms:
No reportingof a ny proceedings in respect of R v S and L.No identi¢cation of the
defendant S by name orotherwis e the nature of the case against him the identi¢ca-
tion of the alleged victim [S’s daughter] her age place of abode or any circumstances
that may lead to her identi¢cation in connection with these proceedings.
2
Media representatives sought to persuade the judge that the order was too restric-
tive but the Recorder of Teesside declined to revisit the order. Eventually the
media representatives appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court granted
leave even though it was subs tantially out of time.
ANONYMITY OF VICTIMS
The one issue that was not questioned was that the daughter of S had the right to
remain anonymous. At a narrowlevel this means the right not to be named as the
n
Reader in Law and Lecturer in Law respectively at De MontfortUniversity.
1[2005]EWCACrim1983.
2ibid,at[3].
r2007 The Authors.Journal Compilation r2007 The Modern Law Review Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2007) 70(1)MLR 114^138

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT