Judge asked to lift order protecting the identity of 12-year-old knife-killers
The two boys, one now aged 13, were found guilty in June of the murder of Shawn Seesahai.
A judge has been invited to consider lifting a ban on identifying two 12-year-old boys who were convicted of murdering a man with a machete.
High Court judge Mrs Justice Tipples said she would issue a ruling on Wednesday on whether or not the defendants, one now aged 13, should lose anonymity granted by an order under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act.
The youths, both from Wolverhampton, were found guilty in June of murdering 19-year-old Shawn Seesahai, who was stabbed in the heart and suffered a skull fracture during an attack on the city’s Stowlawn playing fields on November 13 last year.
A hearing at Nottingham Crown Court on Monday, ahead of a sentencing hearing in September, was told that the judge must balance the welfare of the boys against public interest considerations in deciding whether to make an “excepting” direction which would remove the current anonymity order.
Jude Bunting KC, representing three media organisations, submitted that well-established legal principles allowed courts to dispense with anonymity where it is no longer in the interests of justice.
Mr Bunting also told Mrs Justice Tipples that he understood that the victim’s family wished to see the defendants publicly identified.
Submitting that the murder was within a category identified during a previous case as having a high public interest, he told the court: “This point is squarely present in this case, which has attracted local concern and national revulsion.
“We are in the realm of knife crime, which is an issue of substantial public interest.”
Naming the boys would also enable the media to investigate the possibility of institutional failures, Mr Bunting asserted.
Defence counsel Rachel Brand KC and Paul Lewis KC both opposed the media application to lift the restriction on identifying the boys.
Ms Brand, offering submissions on behalf of the boy who bleached and hid the machete after Mr Seesahai’s murder, said: “We accept that youth alone doesn’t tip the balance in favour of anonymity.”
But she argued that other factors – including the boy’s welfare, vulnerability and complex needs – should be given a “heavier consideration” than public interest factors.
Seeking rehabilitation is the guiding principle of the youth justice system, Ms Brand told the court, adding: “There is absolutely no evidence that naming actually has a deterrent effect.”
“How does naming two 12-year-olds better inform public debate?” Mr Lewis asked. “It doesn’t in our submission.
“There is no evidence that to name two 12-year-olds would provide any deterrent.”
The older defendant – who denied a witness’s claims that he inflicted blows with his friend’s machete – was “not regarded as a problem” at school and had no background of offending or antisocial behaviour, the court was told.
Mr Lewis added: “In the light of that background there is a good prospect, as the authors of the (pre-sentence) report suggest, of rehabilitation in this case.
“In our submission that’s where the interests of justice lie in this case – maintaining the order as it presently is.”
One of the youths was present for part of the hearing, while the other did not attend.
Before adjourning the case, Mrs Justice Tipples made clear that the effect of her ruling on Wednesday is likely to be the subject of a “stay” until sentencing on September 26 and 27.
The “stay” would allow lawyers to challenge the ruling in a higher court, the court heard.
