Killed With An Axe For Daring To Argue With Teenagers.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565358/Father-killed-axe-murder-row-gang-teenagers-outside-block-flats-London.html

With the rapid increase in youth crime, isn't it now time that the perpetrators are named no matter how old they are?

And are the police 'PANDA' cars no longer patrolling the streets on a regular basis?

[Old_Jim]

If the suspect is convicted, he will be named. The law is to protect young people from the effects of being falsely accused. It's not for the Daily Maul or its readers to decide whether someone is guilty.

Violent crime where youths are both the perpetrators and the victims have increased. Crimes involving youths attacking adults have reduced.

[Old_Jim]

If you'd like to pay more tax and Council Tax to pay for more police patrols, write to the Daily Mail and tell them. They assume that we prefer government on the cheap.

[New Judge]

One of the great injustices in this country is the way the youth court procedure protects the identity of young criminals. (This applies equally to youths appearing in the adult Magistrates’ courts, as they do from time to time and to youths appearing in the Crown Court).

Much hullabaloo is wreaked over the “secrecy” of various courts (and in particular the family courts) and when hearings which would normally be public are conducted in secret. (There was one only today in the Daily Mail and I don’t think the facts were distorted too much for those usual suspects who routinely criticise the manner of the Mail’s reporting):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564641/Muslim-solicitor-failed-bid-Chris-Huhne-style-speeding-points-scam-trial-heard-secret-Daily-Mail-challenge-left-career-tatters.html

But nothing is ever said about the most secret courts of all - those that deal with people under 18. I appreciate the need to protect young people to a certain degree from the rigours of the court process. But once they have been convicted there is no reason at all why their identities should not be made known and this is especially so when serious offences such as the one here are involved. Justice in the UK should be seen to be done - and that includes cases where the miscreants are young.

[New Judge]

I'm afraid, Jim, you are incorrect. Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise the identity of all participants in court procedures who are under 18, be they victims, witnesses, acquitted defendants and those convicted, must remain secret.

[mushroom25]

it's very rare for anyone, let alone persons of 18, to be named before they've been charged.

[anotheoldgit]

Old_Jim

/// If the suspect is convicted, he will be named. The law is to protect young people from the effects of being falsely accused. It's not for the Daily Maul or its readers to decide whether someone is guilty. ///

Ignoring the usual anti daily Mail digs, have you not heard of such cases as these?

*** But his 17-year-old killer, who cannot be named for legal reasons, stabbed him in the back without warning. ***

*** Laws state that in court cases young people under a certain age are protected under the phrase of "Cannot be named for legal reasons" ***

[anotheoldgit]

mushroom25

/// it's very rare for anyone, let alone persons of 18, to be named before they've been charged. ///

Named or not, surely we don't come to hear about them, until they have been charged?

[New Judge]

Except:

Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Jim Davidson, Dave Lee Travis, William Roache, Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Paul Gambaccini, Jimmy Tarbuck...

I'm sure you get the jist.

[anotheoldgit]

New Judge

How very droll. :0)

[Gromit]

// With the rapid increase in youth crime //

The mean the rapid decrease in youth crime surely.

// Met Police says youth violence 'fell 30%' in a year.
The number of people affected by serious youth violence fell by 30% with 1,900 fewer victims over the past financial year, according to the Met.
The Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: "London is one of the safest big cities in the world and it's great news that crime rates are continuing to fall. //

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22262667

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25002927

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/police-crime-figures-meaningless-ban-them

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// The Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: "London is one of the safest big cities in the world. ///

I bet this motorist would disagree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565242/Armed-police-called-Waterloo-Bridge-driver-shot-motorbike-gunman.html

[anotheoldgit]

New Judge

Why do you think that this under-aged killer, was both named and identified?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565041/Look-Ive-knockout-Baby-faced-teenager-16-bragged-friends-killing-grandfather-single-punch.html

[New Judge]

Very often judges sentencing very serious offences find that there are “compelling reasons” for the miscreant to lose their right to anonymity, AOG. I would imagine that should anybody be convicted of murder or manslaughter in the case you originally cited their identity will also be revealed even if they are under 18.

But my original point still stands. The default position should be that details of those convicted of any crime should be publicly available, whatever their age, unless there are compelling reasons to withhold them. I will accept that those acquitted should not be identified (and I believe this should hold equally true for adults). But the deal in the UK is that the State takes over the prosecution of those who have committed crimes. The individual forfeits their right to take their own action but in return everybody should be entitled to know the details of court proceedings when a conviction is achieved.

[anotheoldgit]

New Judge

Thank you for that explanation.