Murderer Can't Be Named For Legal Reasons ......

[saintpeter48]

Can someone with a legal background throw some light on this please?
A teenager murders a 7 year old girl in cold blood, the 7 year old girl is named, the family is named, the whole terrible incident is described on the news and front pages, yet the murderer cannot be named for legal reasons, whats all that about?
Can someone please explain it to me, no doubt she will plead insane, or something similar, and be out in a few years with a new identity, new home, protection etc, to lead her life whilst the victims family are just left to get on with it!!

[EDDIE51]

saintpeter48,
What would you want to happen to a severely disturbed 16 year old? T
Your namesake St Peter, had to learn the lesson of forgiveness!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_Peter!

[EDDIE51]

PP and others, there has been a guilty plea which has been accepted!
There can be NO TRIAL only a sentencing hearing !

[Zacs-Master]

The point I don't think anyone has made, is that this murder is so 'newsworthy' (itself a sad reflection on society) that there's no way, had she not pleaded guilty, there would have been a fair trial.

[jackthehat]

Yes, some of us know that EDDIE.

That's why we have been talking about whether the girl will be named at the *sentencing*.

[agchristie]

Saintpeter48, which country's legal system would you prefer to adopt in order to obtain the satisfaction you desire?

[EDDIE51]

If as I assume, the offence was committed when the girl was under 16 she can not be named . Obviously many people especially in the local area will be fully aware of her ID but legally she can not be named.
It is actually an offence to reveal the name unless the Judge grants permission to do so.
Even The Daily Wail is not sufficiently stupid to do that ! , If they did they would be sued for £millions !

[Mamyalynne]

She was 15 at the time.

[saintpeter48]

Thanks everyone for your input, I still cannot see why she cannot be named, under age, mentally unstable or whatever, she was/is old enough to know what is right and what is wrong, killing a 7 year old with a Staaley knife is wrong and, in my opinion, she knew it!!!

[jackthehat]

Your opinion is based solely on what you have read in newspapers, etc. Understanding the law is a separate matter entirely...

[agchristie]

I don't think anyone is doubting that the act was wrong or that she wasn't old enough to know it was wrong.

The issue here is the extent of the mental instability which nobody on here is privy to.

[Zacs-Master]

'And she knew it'

Police,Judge, jury and executioner, It would seem.

[EDDIE51]

saintpeter , The entire point is that her mental problems mean
she IS NOT capable of understanding that what she did was wrong!
That is the basis of diminished responsibility, which is a legal defence to a crime, including murder!

[New Judge]

"Too much pussy footing around using age as an excuse not to name and shame."

Alas (or not, depending on your viewpoint) the UK operates a legal system that is bound by statutes enacted by Parliament. The Children & Young Persons' Act 1933 says that she cannot be named unless a judge decides that she can. A judge has decided, for the time being at least, that she cannot be named. That's it, end of story.

Age is not being used as an excuse for not naming her. The law determines that at her age she cannot be named. Perhaps you'd prefer it if statutory law was just ignored to suit your convenience.

[Old_Geezer]

Maybe the crux of the question is why has parliament decided that.
Possibly because it's the right thing to do ?

"unless a judge decides that she can"
Or maybe the question is about judges' decisions after all. What criteria do they use ?

[jno]

the public interest, I think, OG, but others may be able to correct me.

[Davemano]

So far as I recall diminished responsibility relates only to murder, and if it is allowed, then it comes down to manslaughter.

[Quizproquo]

This happened around the corner from me and I already know the details, sadly.
With that in mind...
1) She was a minor and the law is that as a child she is not fully responsible for her actions and therefore should have a right to be rehabilitated as she matures and better understands the consequences of her actions
2) She smothered her to death before stabbing her. Not that that makes it any better but please don't sensationalise it any further.
3) The parents are not making a fuss about this and until they do we should respect their actions.
4) Mind your own business..what would you gain from this? (Please don't trot out the old "I want to protect others" line unless you know the full circumstances of this crime), you are just being nosy

[EDDIE51]

^ Thanks .
Your point 2 just shows how the Daily Mail's policy is to sensationalise every story to provoke outrage among it's readers!

[andres]

If this girl was considered to be deeply disturbed and mentally deranged why was she not in a secure unit?
If she was so badly affected mentally then how did she have the capacity to know how to plea manslaughter when she had obviously commited cold blooded murder.
However until she is proved guilty her name should be kept secret.