Media reporting on child homicide victims: consultation analysis

Executive Summary

The consultation and who responded

In July 2024, the Scottish Government launched a public consultation on reporting on child homicide victims. This was prompted by concerns raised by bereaved families about the traumatic impact of intense and continuing press and social media coverage of the death of their loved ones as a result of a crime, particularly child victims of homicide.

The purpose of the consultation was to gather views so that next steps could be informed by a wide range of insights and experiences.

There were 46 responses to the consultation. Of these almost two-thirds (30) were received from groups/organisations and one third (16) were received from individuals. The largest category of respondent was media organisations, who submitted 11 of the responses.

A breakdown of responses according to respondent category is provided on page 11 and a list of all organisations that submitted a response to the consultation and agreed to have their name published is included in Annex A. Where permission has been received to do so, responses have been published on the Scottish Government website.

As respondents to public consultations are self-selecting, the analysis presented in this report cannot be considered to be representative of the wider population.

Summary of findings

The consultation invited views on a range of possible approaches - both legislative and non-legislative - to reducing the trauma that media reporting has on bereaved families, and on the impacts those approaches might have.

Overall, throughout the consultation there was a general split in opinion between media organisations, and individuals who have been bereaved and victim support organisations. Respondents’ views were particularly polarised on whether legislating for anonymity was the appropriate action to take, and none of the four options set out in the consultation paper was supported by a majority of respondents.

Reflections on current reporting approaches

Impact of media coverage on the bereaved

Respondents recognised the grief and trauma of losing a child, especially in such tragic circumstances. Some, particularly individuals who had been bereaved and victim support organisations, told us that this trauma was compounded, and further distress was caused, by the way in which the death of the child had been covered by the media. Particular concern was expressed about the impact on surviving child siblings.

Some respondents questioned extending anonymity specifically to child victims of homicide, suggesting that the same impact of media coverage may be felt by the bereaved where the victim is over 18, or a victim of other crime types.

Behaviour of the media and the manner of reporting

Many respondents who had been bereaved and victim support organisations, suggested that the general approach of some media outlets both before a story is published and the manner and tone of the reporting itself can be problematic. These respondents specifically raised unnecessary and graphic details in reporting, and the ongoing nature of coverage, as features of the media response causing families to have to re-live their trauma.

However, many respondents (including some of those that were strongly in favour of an extension of anonymity) were of the view that, on the whole, the Scottish media operates responsibly and ethically with sensitivity and compassion.

Role of the media

The vast majority of responses from media organisations commented on the positive role the media outlets have as the “watchdogs of democracy” with many raising that reporting on child homicide cases can be a powerful tool to:

• correct inaccuracies (particularly those that may circulate on social media) and confirm facts
• raise awareness
• scrutinise and hold systems and institutions to account
• provoke meaningful change in society

Some commented on the media’s role specifically within the criminal justice system, including for police appeals for information; holding perpetrators to account; and aiding public confidence in the justice system. It was also suggested that media is the key mechanism by which the public are informed about, and understand, the workings of the justice system.

However, many respondents were of the view that coverage of these cases is problematic, questioned the agenda of the media and suggested it was to sell newspapers, get “likes” or make a profit rather than for reporting in the public interest.

Current regulation and guidelines

The current system of media regulation in the UK was referred to in many responses and views were split on if it is sufficient.

All responses from media organisations spoke positively of the current system of regulation which they thought provides adequate protection, while also being flexible. Respondents also raised that the current regulatory system is generally complied with.

However, other respondents commented that it is a voluntary and self-regulating system which lacks guidance specifically on reporting on child homicide cases. Respondents also raised that it is only applicable to “traditional” forms of media.

Overall views on potential options

Respondents were asked to what extent they supported the following options:

1. No anonymity restrictions (i.e. the status quo) but with non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit

2. Full anonymity restrictions (no waiver)

3. Automatic anonymity with option to waive

4. No automatic anonymity but can apply for court order (with the potential for non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit)

Overall, the results were mixed and there was no one option that all respondents were clearly in favour of. However, it is clear that option 2, full anonymity with no waiver, received the least amount of support from respondents.

1. No anonymity restrictions (i.e. the status quo) but with non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit

There was no outright majority view on this option. Most who agreed with this option (13 out of 27) were respondents from media organisations. However, this support was often caveated with many respondents stating that they would need further information about the “authorship, content or status” of a media toolkit.

The majority of respondents that disagreed with this option (10 out of 27) were bereaved individuals and victim support organisations, as many did not think non-legislative measures alone would be effective.

Other respondents thought that the status quo should remain and no non-legislative actions should be taken.

For a media toolkit to be useful and effective, many respondents suggested those with experience and expertise should be involved, including bereaved families, victim support organisations, criminal justice agencies, and journalists.

Respondents considered that any media toolkit should be “victim-centred” and “trauma-informed” and should emphasise empathy, dignity, the privacy of those bereaved and the importance of factual reporting.

Specific suggestions for what should be included in a toolkit included guidance on language used, the traumatic impact coverage can have on those bereaved, limiting detail, use of photos, repetition of coverage at later dates, and content/trigger warnings.

2. Full anonymity restrictions (no waiver)

This option received the least amount of support from respondents with only one supporting it. The main reasons given by respondents for disagreeing with this option were: it would not be a workable solution, it would be disproportionate, it would restrict the freedom of expression of the media and also of those bereaved and would not provide them with any choice or control.

3. Automatic anonymity with option to waive

Respondents were almost evenly split over the option of automatic anonymity with the option to waive.

The majority of respondents that agreed with this option (16 out of 31) were bereaved individuals, victim support organisations and children’s organisations. The main reasons for support were: it is proportionate and enforceable and it allows the bereaved some choice and control.

The majority of respondents that disagreed with this option (15 out of 31) were media organisations. The main reasons for disagreement were: it is not workable, it is not necessary or proportionate, it could still result in over-criminalisation.

In terms of how a waiver should operate, the option with most support from respondents (9 out of 25) was that family members should be able to waive the child’s anonymity without applying for a court order, but that this should not cause the reporting restrictions on others to fall away: anyone else who wished to publish identifying information would still need to seek permission from the family.

However, some victim support organisations expressed concerns about a waiver process that did not have judicial oversight. Many respondents also commented on the difficulties in defining family members for these purposes, and noted the difficulties presented when family members did not share a unified view.

Due to these complexities, and the low number of such cases, some respondents suggested the question of who had the right to waive anonymity could be considered on a case-by case basis by the court. However, others considered that a court process could be cumbersome, expensive and potentially re-traumatising for families.

4. No automatic anonymity but can apply for court order (with the potential for non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit)

Of those that responded to this option, the majority disagreed (22 out of 29) and very few were supportive (3 out of 29). The main reasons given by respondents for disagreeing with this option were: an application process would put an undue and unreasonable burden on those bereaved and grieving, and the court process for an application would be too slow to keep up with the news cycle.

Start point for anonymity

If anonymity for deceased child victims was introduced in any form, the option that had the most support from respondents (12 out of 25) was that anonymity should start from the point of a child’s death (when it is established that criminality is involved).

Reasons given included: any later would be too late as information may already have been released and once details are in the public domain it is difficult/impossible to remove them, and this option would provide protection and choice/control for those bereaved from the earliest point when they are at their most vulnerable.

Other non-legislative options

Suggestions of other non-legislative means of improving how child homicides are reported and information published included:

• a separate toolkit for those who have been bereaved to support them in navigating the media interest in, and coverage of, the case and provide information on their rights
• publicising the impact media coverage can have on those who have been bereaved with the sharing of lived experience
• more proactive and joint communication between justice agencies and families about what the media might report
• specialist media training on trauma-informed reporting

Potential impact of anonymity for child homicide victims

Bereaved talking about loss

It was commonly raised by respondents, across all categories, that not all of those who have been bereaved will respond in the same way to media coverage and if, and how, they wish to talk publicly about their loss will also be unique. Many reasons individuals may wish to talk publicly were identified, including as part of their grieving process, to raise awareness, to campaign for change, to fundraise, and to memorialise and celebrate the life of their loved one.

Some respondents raised concerns about the negative impact on friends and family if a strict approach to anonymity was introduced. Comments included:

• this would breach the right to freedom of expression of those individuals
• the risk and proportionality of criminalising grieving family and friends if they were to share information about the victim
• the negative experience of those bereaved in other jurisdictions where anonymity provisions have been introduced
• family and friends would have to anonymise themselves due to the risk of jigsaw identification.

However, other respondents, more commonly victim support organisations and individuals who had been bereaved, commented on the positive impact anonymity with the option for it to be waived could have and often raised the choice and control this would give those bereaved.

Others were of the view that even if there was a process to waive anonymity this could still have unintended consequences, further complications and a negative impact on those bereaved. These respondents commented: that family members and friends will likely have differing views on speaking publicly, particularly given the complexities of modern families, and the views of individuals can change over time.

Police investigation

The media can play an important role in assisting with police investigations, as their coverage of crimes can raise public awareness of an investigation and assist in bringing forward witnesses. Some media respondents suggested that without the name of the victim, any media coverage may be less effective and the audience are likely to be less engaged.

Some respondents referred to situations that start as a missing child case, with widespread publicity to aid the search, but then develop into homicide cases, and suggested that introducing reporting restrictions at that point could then impede the police in gathering further information from potential witnesses.

However, other respondents noted that anonymity is managed effectively in other circumstances, for example where the accused is a child or for child victims of sexual offences.

Freedom of expression

The impact an extension of anonymity would have on freedom of expression was a significant concern for all media organisation respondents, with some warning that it could be legally challengeable as non-compliant with Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

Many respondents raised that an extension of anonymity would not only restrict the freedom of expression of the media but would also directly impact individuals, including those that had been bereaved, from talking publicly about their loss.

However, many respondents noted that freedom of expression is a qualified right and that restrictions to it can be justified in some circumstances.

Whose rights are being protected

Some respondents raised the importance of being clear on whose rights are being protected when considering the extension of anonymity to child victims of homicide and which are the priority: the deceased child, surviving child siblings, other family members, the general public or the media. Many respondents referred to the protection of fundamental rights under the ECHR and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Open justice

All media organisations felt strongly that an extension to anonymity would have an extremely negative impact on open justice.^[1] Some respondents raised that as the perpetrators of child homicides are most commonly parents, in these cases the perpetrator would also have to be afforded anonymity due to the risk of jigsaw identification.^[2] This was seen to compound the impact that anonymity for child homicide victims would have on open justice.

Of those respondents that thought an extension to anonymity would not impact on open justice, it was often raised that anonymity would not prevent the cases from being reported on. Some respondents also referred to examples of anonymity for other individuals and case types including where the accused is under 18 and also victims of sexual offences.

Public understanding of provisions

Many respondents were of the view that if anonymity provisions were introduced then wider public understanding of the provisions would be of high importance, particularly as breach of the provisions would be a criminal offence resulting in a penalty. However, a number of respondents suggested achieving this would be challenging, with some even stating it would be impossible.

Some highlighted that many individuals may not recognise that their own use of social media would be covered by any anonymity provisions, not just traditional forms of media. Therefore if, due to this lack of understanding, they were to share prohibited information online this would risk undermining the restrictions.

Enforcement of anonymity and social media

In respect of the main challenges to enforcing anonymity restrictions, the most commonly raised themes were:

• social media
• the lack of public knowledge of the law
• the potential for over-criminalisation of individuals acting with good intentions

The most commonly suggested penalty for breaching an anonymity restriction was a fine, with some respondents suggesting that this should be higher for media organisations than for individual members of the public.

Cross-border application

Of those that addressed this issue in their response, a majority (20 out of 27) agreed that any extension of anonymity to deceased child victims in Scotland would need to apply to the rest of the UK to be effective. The general view was that otherwise any provisions would be “unmanageable and completely ineffective” and “virtually impossible to implement and impose”.

Other themes

Other key themes raised in responses were:

• Public interest: Some respondents, particularly media organisations, were of the view that transparent reporting on child homicide cases, including the name of the victim, is in the public interest. However, other respondents raised that there is a difference between what is in the public interest and what the public are interested in, and that they are not entitled to know every detail in the name of public interest.
• The small number of child homicide cases: some respondents referred to this as a reason why these crimes draw so much attention but others expressed concern, on behalf of those bereaved, that this is often used as a justification for increased media coverage. Many responses from media organisations stated that the small number of cases was a specific reason not to legislate for anonymity as this would be a disproportionate response.
• Case examples: Many respondents, in order to put their views in context, referred to specific cases of child homicide. These have not been referred to directly in this analysis to avoid re-traumatisation of bereaved families who may read this report. However, the variety of case examples given do illustrate the wide range of circumstances in which child homicides take place and the complexities that are often involved.