14 year old child held over murder of 80-year-old in park

[1988]

Terrible stuff. Did they hurt the dog too?

 

[Wilt]

Because of jigsaw identification, if you name the parents it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to identify the kids.

Secondly, we have no idea if the parents had anything to do with it or not, the police and the CPS however will be well aware one way or the other by now. and if the parents have carried out any crime, abuse etc, then they will be prosecuted separately.

They’ve already named the boy as being 14. When that 14 year old doesn’t turn up at school and seems to have disappeared it wouldn’t take ‘Sherlock Holmes’ to put two and two together.

Be very surprised if the boy in question was not known locally. If found guilty the judge may even name him.

 

[Rado_N]

The vengeful side of people these kind of cases bring out is always quite alarming.

fecking horrifying story.

 

[The Boy]

They’ve already named the boy as being 14. When that 14 year old doesn’t turn up at school and seems to have disappeared it wouldn’t take ‘Sherlock Holmes’ to put two and two together.

Be very surprised if the boy in question was not known locally. If found guilty the judge may even name him.

There's a huge difference between people locally knowing and the media being able to name the accused, publish their photos etc. Often sensitive or provocative cases like this are moved to a court in a different part of the country to avoid any local knowledge influencing a jury or any other opart of the case before or during the trial.

You're right though at the end of the case if they are found guilty, a judge can lift their right to anonymity and they often do like the Bulger case or the teens that killed Brianna Ghey more recently. But that's after they've had a fair trial and been found guilty, never before.

Current guidance for judges says:

“Prior to and during the trial, the welfare of the defendant is likely to take precedence over the public interest in publication, whereas after conviction, the age of the offender and the seriousness of the crime will be particularly relevant … [and] the balance will invariably have shifted in favour of publication, albeit not necessarily decisively so.”

But going back to your point about naming and shaming the parents, it shouldn't happen because you need to protect a fair trial and naming the parents immediately identifies the kids and more importantly how do we know if the parents have done anything wrong, not all bad kids come from bad families.

 

[Red in STL]

There's a huge difference between people locally knowing and the media being able to name the accused, publish their photos etc. Often sensitive or provocative cases like this are moved to a court in a different part of the country to avoid any local knowledge influencing a jury or any other opart of the case before or during the trial.

You're right though at the end of the case if they are found guilty, a judge can lift their right to anonymity and they often do like the Bulger case or the teens that killed Brianna Ghey more recently. But that's after they've had a fair trial and been found guilty, never before.

Current guidance for judges says:

“Prior to and during the trial, the welfare of the defendant is likely to take precedence over the public interest in publication, whereas after conviction, the age of the offender and the seriousness of the crime will be particularly relevant … [and] the balance will invariably have shifted in favour of publication, albeit not necessarily decisively so.”

But going back to your point about naming and shaming the parents, it shouldn't happen because you need to protect a fair trial and naming the parents immediately identifies the kids and more importantly how do we know if the parents have done anything wrong, not all bad kids come from bad families.

And just to add to this, we all know what would happen if they are named, there'd be an angry mob outside their front door seeking 'justice'

 

[Wilt]

There's a huge difference between people locally knowing and the media being able to name the accused, publish their photos etc. Often sensitive or provocative cases like this are moved to a court in a different part of the country to avoid any local knowledge influencing a jury or any other opart of the case before or during the trial.

You're right though at the end of the case if they are found guilty, a judge can lift their right to anonymity and they often do like the Bulger case or the teens that killed Brianna Ghey more recently. But that's after they've had a fair trial and been found guilty, never before.

Current guidance for judges says:

“Prior to and during the trial, the welfare of the defendant is likely to take precedence over the public interest in publication, whereas after conviction, the age of the offender and the seriousness of the crime will be particularly relevant … [and] the balance will invariably have shifted in favour of publication, albeit not necessarily decisively so.”

But going back to your point about naming and shaming the parents, it shouldn't happen because you need to protect a fair trial and naming the parents immediately identifies the kids and more importantly how do we know if the parents have done anything wrong, not all bad kids come from bad families.

I do agree.

Although I’m in the camp where I believe if the boy is found guilty then he should be named …if he’s old enough to kill he should face the full consequences.