Yahoo News Why Southport murder suspect Axel Rudakubana has now been named
A judge ruled the 17-year-old could be named in part because he was due to turn 18 shortly.
The 17-year-old suspect at the centre of the Southport mass stabbing has been named by the media, despite his age usually granting him protection.
On Thursday, Axel Rudakubana appeared in Liverpool Crown Court after being charged with the murder on Monday of Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in Southport.
He is also charged with the attempted murder of yoga class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes and eight children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as well as with possession of a kitchen knife with a curved blade.
Reporting restrictions under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had previously prevented him being identified.
However, after hearing an application from the prosecution, supported by the defence and media companies, a judge said he would not impose the order, which is usually used to give anonymity to those aged younger than 18 in the criminal courts.
Judge Andrew Menary said: “Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum. Whilst I accept it is exceptional, given his age, principally because he is 18 in six days’ time, I do not make an order under section 45.
Rudakubana's identity had previously been the source of false rumours that had spread on social media, with some incorrectly identifying him as an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK last year. The rumour is believed to have been used by members of the far-right to spark unrest in Southport on Tuesday night.
What is section 45?
In terms of criminal law, when youths appear in court, they are often granted anonymity in a range of settings to protect them.
There is an automatic ban on the identification of children in youth court proceedings, and if a youth appears in the crown court the judge can impose reporting restrictions ensuring their anonymity under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Up until the point of the Section 45 order being implemented legally, they can be named, says journalist and media law expert David Banks.
This is because Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 – which gives anonymity from the moment a criminal investigation begins – hasn't yet been activated, says Banks, creating a "loophole" that could be used, but often isn't.
"Successive governments haven't activated Section 44, which would make everything a whole lot simpler. Then you would never have any question over this issue."
In the Southport case due to the fact Rudakubana will turn 18 next week the judge decided not to implement Section 45 because of the overwhelming media interest.
He would have lost his entitlement to anonymity when he turned 18.
The Editors' Code of Practice
Another reason to not name an underage suspect is the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Editors' Code of Practice, which says: "Editors should avoid naming children who are arrested, unless their identity is already in the public domain."
It adds: "Sometimes, there are exceptions to clauses of the Code, if a journalist is able to show that there is a public interest. If a journalist wants to use a public interest exception and the issue is about a child, they must show an even greater public interest than for an adult."
Banks added: "There's been this loophole in terms of the law. However, the editor's code of practice says that even where you legally can, you shouldn't name a youth involved in criminal proceedings."
But he said there have been situations in the past, such as the murder of Leeds teacher Ann Maguire in 2014 at the hands of 15-year-old Will Cornick, where youths have been named, because there was believed to be an "overwhelming public interest" in identifying them.
"Very often this gets questioned in extraordinary and horrific events," he said. "Someone, an editor, might think this is such an horrific event that it is in the public interest to identify whoever it is. That's what they would argue if a complaint was made to IPSO – whether IPSO would agree would be another matter."
Privacy laws and Bloomberg vs ZXC
There is also a distinction between arrested and charged. An arrest does not necessarily mean the police will go ahead with charging an individual with a crime, they could be released with no further conditions. If they are charged then that means a trial will go to court.
One reason why media do not name suspects who have been arrested but not yet charged is a landmark appeal ruling in 2022 that saw the UK Supreme Court rule against Bloomberg News over its reporting of investigations into an US businessman.
The businessman – referred to as ZXC – sued Bloomberg over an article into allegations of fraud, bribery and corruption, claiming he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and brought a claim for misuse of private information against Bloomberg, according to the Reuters news agency.
The ruling means a person under criminal investigation has a reasonable expectation of privacy until they are charged. It has prompted media companies to voice concerns over the impact such use of privacy laws would have on reporting in the public interest.
