In a move welcomed by children’s rights organisations, the 11 and 12 year-old brothers who were sentenced today for grave attacks on two boys in Edlington in April 2009 will not be named following the refusal by the judge in Sheffield Crown Court of a media application to lift reporting restrictions.

However, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England believes the indefinite sentence passed on the two boys violates international legal requirements to make child custody a genuine last resort for the shortest possible period of time, and to prioritise rehabilitation when dealing with child offenders. The decision to place the young boys' names on the sex offenders' register is wholly inappropriate and unnecessary.

Plans by national media organisations such as the BBC and Sky to apply for the boys to be named were dropped earlier in the week and today’s application came only from local newspapers.  It was opposed not only by the defendants but also by the prosecution and local authority who all agreed the boys’ identities should remain protected.  CRAE’s legal director, Katy Swaine, submitted a statement to the court which set out why the naming of the boys would contravene international law, and drawing attention to the wide public consensus opposing the lifting of restrictions.

Welcoming the media ruling, Katy Swaine said:

The judge was right to resist media pressure in this very serious case.  Whatever these young children have done, naming them would have violated international law and would not have served the public interest. 

In a letter published in yesterday's Guardian newspaper, the chief executives of several major children's and human rights organisations joined CRAE's national co-ordinator, Carolyne Willow, in calling for reporting restrictions to be maintained. 

More details

Katy Swaine, CRAE Legal director

office: 020 7278 8222 x30

kswaine@crae.org.uk

Notes for editors 

1. The Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) is a coalition of over 270 voluntary and statutory organisations committed to the full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention requires children's privacy to be protected at all stages of criminal proceedings and for children’s best interests to be a primary consideration in all matters affecting them. 
2. In its General Comment No. 10 on ‘Children’s rights in juvenile justice’, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child commented, ‘The protection of the best interests of the child means, for instance, that the traditional objectives of criminal justice, such as repression/retribution, must give way to rehabilitation and restorative justice objectives in dealing with child offenders. This can be done in concert with attention to effective public safety.’ 
3. When it examined the UK’s children’s rights record in 2008, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child severely criticised the juvenile justice system and recommended widespread reforms, including considerably raising the age of criminal responsibility – at 10 years old currently one of the lowest in Europe. 

 ENDS