Media reporting on child homicide victims: consultation analysis

Overall views on potential options

Question 21: To what extent do you support the options discussed in this paper? Please give reasons for your answer

Respondents were asked to what extent they supported the four options put forward in the consultation paper. These were:

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)

As will be shown in more detail below, the results were mixed and there was no one option that all respondents were clearly in favour of. However, it is clear that the option of 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

Of the 27 respondents that provided an answer to this question about no anonymity but with non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit: 13 either agreed or strongly agreed, the majority of which were media organisations; 4 neither agreed or disagreed; and 10 either disagreed or strongly disagreed and the majority of these respondents were bereaved individuals and victim support organisations.

Some of those that indicated support for non-legislative actions caveated this by stating that they would need further information about the “authorship, content or status” of a media toolkit.

Of those that did not agree with the status quo with non-legislative action option, some questioned how effective these non-legislative measures would be. Others thought that the status quo should remain and no non-legislative actions should be taken.

2. Full anonymity restrictions (no waiver)

Of the 29 respondents that provided an answer this question, the vast majority (27) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the option of full anonymity restrictions (no waiver). Only 1 respondent either agreed or strongly agreed and 1 neither agreed or disagreed.

The main reasons given by respondents for disagreeing with this option were: it is not a workable solution, it would be disproportionate, it would restrict the freedom of expression of the media and also 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. Of the 31 respondents that provided an answer to this question, 16 either agreed or strongly agreed (the majority of which were bereaved individuals, victim support organisations, and children’s organisations), and 15 either disagreed or strongly disagreed (the majority of which were media organisations).

The main reasons given by respondents for supporting this option were: it is proportionate and enforceable and it allows the bereaved some choice and control.

The main reasons given by respondents for disagreeing with this option were: it is not workable, it is not necessary or proportionate, it could still result in over-criminalisation.

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

The response for the option of no automatic anonymity restrictions but can apply for court order (with the potential for non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit) was more negative than positive. Of the 29 respondents that provided an answer to this question, 3 either agreed or strongly agreed, 4 neither agreed or disagreed, and 22 either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

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.

Question 23: Are there other options you think we should explore? Please provide details.

19 respondents provided an answer to this question directly, many of the comments made have been addressed elsewhere in the report. In response to this question, many media organisations re-iterated their view that they do not think reform is necessary.

One respondent suggested consideration of the following option, similar to the approach taken in New South Wales (as is discussed in the Scottish Government’s published review of international approaches to anonymity):

“We believe that to try to minimise the potential challenges/unintended consequences of each of the options detailed above, there should be automatic anonymity, with the right for those with parental rights and responsibilities to be able to waive anonymity without requiring a court order. There could be certain caveats to this, possibly enshrined in guidance, such as if there were no surviving parents or the parent was involved in the murder of the child, similar to the approach in New South Wales as outlined in the accompanying evidence paper.

The rights and views of surviving siblings should be paramount in decisions. Those with parental rights and responsibilities should seek these children’s views and take them into account when deciding whether to identify the deceased child.

We think the involvement of courts in decisions should be minimised given the emotional, time and financial implications of court involvement but deem there should be recourse to court in certain circumstances and at any time…

We do not believe that all restrictions should fall at that stage, nor that family members should need to give permission if identifying information is to be re-published as we are concerned that this could result in repeated contact, even hounding for permissions. However, we believe that the individuals who waive anonymity should be able to define what type of information can be published and shared, which can then be republished by others without a criminal offence being committed. This should avoid information that families would not want to be shared, including often graphic information which could potentially be the most traumatising, from being published, thereby maximise the level of control that family members have over what is being shared, without enhancing the burden of requests on families.” - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice