edhistory

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The full name has now been amended - to be > replaced, substantially, with xs - that may be > enough. It would probably have been better to say > something on the lines of 'the boy, who had a > knife in his pocket, and who drove the bike away, > has been identified and the name supplied to the > police and his school.' That way at least there > could be no real issue of a sub-judice problem. > > Whilst the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in > England, young people who are charged with and > convicted of crimes may be covered (under the age > of 18) by reporting restrictions - prima facie the > original post would have been in breach of these > had they been applied for, so the removal of the > name (and possibly the boy's school as well) would > be necessary to meet any such reporting > restriction. I was referred to "The Magistrate" magazine of May 2017 where there is a detailed up-do-date summary for Magistrates on Youth Panels of the extensive law on disclosing "Children's" names. The article in each case either refers to the specific legislation or case law. Southwark Libraries can probably supply a copy of the article if anyone wants to read it. All the references are to when a case is sub-judice. There is no definition of when sub-judice start to run. So that leaves two further points: 1] When does sub-judice start? 2] is it only libel law that applies before then?