Media reporting on child homicide victims: consultation analysis

Legislative options

How anonymity provisions would operate

Start point

Question 11: If anonymity for deceased child victims was introduced, at what point do you think it should start?

a) From the point of a child’s death (when it is established that criminality is involved)

b) From the start of criminal proceedings

c) Other – please provide details

Please give reasons for your choice.

Answer to Q11	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
From the point of a child’s death (when it is established criminality is involved)	12	12
From the start of criminal proceedings	1	1
Other	12	11
Total	25	24

Of the 25 respondents that provided an answer to this question, 12 selected ‘from the point of a child’s death (when it is established criminality is involved)’, 1 selected ‘from the start of criminal proceedings’ and the remaining 12 selected ‘other’.

Of those respondents that selected 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.

“Reporting restrictions should apply from the earliest possible point and to as wide a jurisdiction as possible (i.e. UK wide and include online and social media content). Whilst inevitably there will be widespread knowledge about the fact that a child has died because of homicide, that information being available worldwide, in the public domain, often with graphic levels of detail about the circumstances involved and being difficult if not impossible to completely retract is the key difference. - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

“This will protect the families surviving siblings and the victim from the very beginning this is when it it is very difficult and the media are relentless at the beginning it will give families time to process what's happened and peace also and they also won't find things out in the media before having the chance to be told by the people who it should be” - individual, bereaved family member or friend

Other respondents suggested that they favoured anonymity starting from the point of a child’s death, regardless of if criminality has been established.

“It is SASWs view that anonymity should be offered to families at the point of a child's death regardless of criminality, with families having the option to waive this without the need to go to court. Bereaved families should not be expected to go to court either to secure anonymity or to waive this. In complex cases there can be a long investigative period between a child's death and the start of criminal proceedings during which time the family can find themselves subject to intense scrutiny and public speculation. An assumption of anonymity would enable families to grieve in private unless they decided to share details of their loss. Where it was considered anonymity would hamper any police investigation or unduly impact freedom of expression application could be made to court to lift anonymity, as currently is the case with child offenders and rape victims.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Some respondents commented that this should not be the start point for anonymity as there could be a need to notify the local community and to identify witnesses.

“it is within our experience that there can be considerable investigative benefit in publicity which prompts members of the public to come forward with what may be vitally important evidence. This may suggest that it should not start from the point of death.

Very few child deaths will be invisible to the immediately surrounding community. If a child is suddenly absent from school, there may be alarm and suspicion directed to the child’s family which may be dispelled by the publication of information about the child’s death.” – Senators of the College of Justice

Of those respondents that selected ‘other’, the main reason given, primarily from media organisations, was that they did not think anonymity should be introduced at any point.

Waiver

Question 12: If anonymity is automatic, how should a waiver process operate?

a) Family members must apply to court to waive anonymity

b) Family members are allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order and all restrictions fall when anonymity is waived

c) Family members are allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order but restrictions do not fall when they do so and those wishing to publish identifying information must seek permission from the family before doing so

d) Other – please provide details

Please give reasons for your choice.

Answer to Q12	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Family members must apply to court to waive anonymity	3	3
Family members are allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order and all restrictions fall when anonymity is waived	0	0
Family members are allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order but restrictions do not fall when they do so and those wishing to publish identifying information must seek permission from the family before doing so	9	9
Other	13	12
Total	25	24

25 respondents answered this question, 3 of those answered ‘Family members must apply to court to waive anonymity’ and 9 answered ‘Family members are allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order but restrictions do not fall when they do so and those wishing to publish identifying information must seek permission from the family before doing so’. The further 13 all answered ‘other’.

Those who supported the option of family members needing to apply to court to waive anonymity told us: there is the need for an independent monitor of the waiver process particularly as families may not be in agreement about waiving anonymity; although there would be a cost issue associated with applying for a waiver, this could be addressed by the provision of legal aid; and although it may be a difficult process for the families to engage with, it would provide necessary protection for them.

However, other respondents raised concerns about family members having to go through a court process at a time when they are already under great emotional strain.

No respondents that answered this question supported family members being allowed to waive anonymity without requiring a court order, resulting in all restrictions falling. One respondent commented that allowing anonymity to be waived without going to court would risk families waiving anonymity without having a full understanding of the potential implications.

Many of those that supported family members being allowed to waive anonymity without a court order but restrictions remaining in place, with those who wish to publish identifying information being required to seek permission from the family, commented that this would be the best way to give the families choice and control.

“I think this gives parents or next of kin the power they should have to make these choices . It is their child or family member. They have some control . At a time when there [sic] life is out of control. Court could be involved if one guardian disagrees. However again better to take time to make these decisions under anonymity as other way round there is no coming back.” - individual, bereaved family member or friend

Some respondents commented that the benefit of this option was it would allow family members to, for example, post about their child on social media or fundraise in their name without having to go through a potentially costly and time consuming court process.

Other respondents raised concerns about this option including: the family may be inundated with requests to publish information and may feel pressured to do so, and a lack of clarity on if this would allow family members to identify the child on mainstream media.

“A waiver that can be granted without a judicial process leaves vulnerable families open to inadvertently granting a waiver they did not wish to grant. For example, the press may interpret social media posts by the family as a form of waiver since information about the deceased may be considered to have entered the public domain (even if this information is obviously private, such as details of the funeral arrangements). This would have the effect of limiting the right of the family to their own freedom of expression, which may be an important” - Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Some respondents raised complications with, and concerns about, a waiver in general including: defining who is a family member for the purposes of waiving anonymity would be challenging due to the complexities of modern families. For example, where the perpetrator is a family member would they have a say on waiving anonymity? Family members may also have differing views and disagree about identifying the child.

“Many Scots live in a network of complex and flexible relationships- there are blended families, care-experienced children and children whose grandparents play the major role in their upbringing. Even in the most “traditional” families, there may be conflicting narratives and differences in attitudes to publicity. Indeed, where a child has died at the hands of one person in loco parentis, it is more likely than not that other parents and their extended family will have strong views on the matter. There will need at some point to be a focus on definitions of who the family are, what constitutes identifying information and what is to be done in the event of family disagreement.” - Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

As stated above, 13 respondents selected ‘other’ in response to the question about how a waiver should operate. Many of these respondents commented that they did not believe that anonymity should be introduced at all.

Some victim support organisations selected ‘other’ to propose an additional approach. They highlighted that although there was a lack of consensus on how a waiver should operate among the families bereaved by crime that they had consulted with, the organisations had concerns about a waiver process that did not have judicial oversight. They did, however, note that engaging with court processes could also be retraumatising for family members so suggested that the onus of applying for the waiver could rest with the media. They further raised that a waiver process would give families the time necessary to consider what is best for them:

“Families often tell us they feel exploited in their time of grief to divulge intimate details to satiate response to the press and public desire for true crime content – something that they often later regret. The public’s appetite for information cannot outweigh a family’s (ibid.). Ensuring child homicide victim’s anonymity would help provide space for families to grieve in private and process information at their own pace (ibid.).” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Some respondents were of the view that, in the case that a family has waived anonymity, the process of seeking permission to publish identifying information should be done via the court system rather than by seeking permission from the family directly as:

“Placing responsibility on family members to permit publishing of identifying information may impose an undue administrative burden on them at a time of grieving, and may lead to inconsistencies in decision making. The family having waived anonymity can be used by the court to inform their decision to waive anonymity more widely, the court is likely to take a more objective stance and it places the burden of court process on publishing organisations rather than private individuals… A court process for journalists to gain a waiver for anonymity would ensure families were both informed and had the opportunity to have their views represented and considered.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Question 13: Who should be allowed to waive anonymity/apply for a waiver?

29 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

Some respondents, particularly individuals who had been bereaved, suggested parents, next of kin, main guardians or immediate family members should be allowed to waive anonymity.

Again, many respondents commented on the difficulties in defining family members, even parents/guardians, for these purposes and the difficulties presented when they do not share a unified view.

“Family structures are complicated. It is not uncommon for a parent to be absent for a short or long period, for a grandparent to be involved, or for a wider group of family to be involved in responsibility for the child than the immediate parents. There is currently no mechanism to define who has a right to make that decision, or for a speedy way to resolve differences if the parents or guardian’s opinions vary.” – National Union of Journalists

Due to these complexities, and the low number of child homicide cases some respondents from victim support organisations suggested the question of who had the right to waive anonymity could be taken on a case-by case basis and carefully considered by the court “so that risks and competing interests can be appropriately managed.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

However, others did not think a court process would necessarily be a simple solution to this:

“Whilst a court could endeavour to evaluate and adjudicate between competing views, such a mechanism would be a cumbersome, expensive and potentially traumatising process for the bereaved.” – Senators of the College of Justice

“The most inclusive approach would be to require application to the court before anonymity could be waived (Question 12, option (a)) and permitting only certain, defined relatives of the child to make such an application but requiring them to notify certain other relatives who would have the opportunity to oppose the application. Of course, each group of relatives would have to be defined. On reflection, while this approach has the advantage of inclusivity, the time it would take to complete the necessary steps and the potential cost involved suggests that it is just too cumbersome.” – individual, legal professional

Potential impact of anonymity for child homicide victims

Bereaved talking about loss

Question 3: To what extent do you think an extension of anonymity to deceased child victims would affect family and friends wanting to talk publicly about their loss?

29 respondents provided an answer to this question directly. Other respondents addressed this issue in comments made throughout their response.

It was commonly raised by respondents, across all categories, that not all of those who have been bereaved will respond in the same way, their experience of grief and trauma is unique as will be how they process their experience. Therefore if, and how, they wish to talk publicly about their loss will also be unique.

There was broad agreement among respondents that there are many reasons individuals may wish to talk publicly including: as part of their grieving process, to raise awareness, campaign for change, fundraise, and to memorialise and celebrate the life of their loved one.

Many respondents also commented on the wide range of people who are impacted by such a loss and may wish to talk about it publicly including: family members, friends, neighbours, teachers, members of the local community, and professionals such as doctors, lawyers and academics.

“Experience tells us that family reactions to being bereaved of their children by homicide is diverse, from people reluctant to engage with the media at all, to survivors wanting to publicly celebrate the life of their loved one, using their platform to push for legal and policy change, for accountability for the failures of public authorities, and even just to memorialise the complexity of their loved one’s life, achievements and passions, resisting the sometimes powerful tendency to reduce the person to their victim status and their cause of death. Indeed, a longstanding critique of our media culture has been that it places outsize emphasis on the character and biography of perpetrators, paying insufficient attention to the lives, characters and contributions of their victims. Affording relatives the chance to speak out in public is often regarded as an important corrective to these reductive social impulses… There is no uniform victim experience, and creating a one-size fits all solution is likely to lead to bad law.” – individual, legal professional

“The experience of many journalists is that, even in what can be the darkest hour, most people (including victims) wish to share and inform.” – Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

Some respondents raised concerns about the negative impact on friends and family if a strict approach to anonymity was introduced for child victims of homicide with many, particularly media organisations, suggesting this would breach the right to freedom of expression of those individuals (covered in more detail in the specific section on freedom of expression below). Concerns were also raised about the risk and proportionality of criminalising grieving family and friends if they were to share information about the victim (covered in more detail in the specific section on enforcement of anonymity and social media below).

The negative experience of those bereaved in other jurisdictions where anonymity provisions have been introduced, particularly the Republic of Ireland and Victoria, Australia, was commonly raised by respondents, with the research undertaken by the Scottish Government on international models of anonymity for deceased victims of crimes often being referred to. Respondents to this consultation suggested lessons should be learned from these jurisdictions.

Further comments included that family and friends would have to anonymise themselves due to the risk of jigsaw identification with some, particularly media organisations, suggesting this could impact them negatively.

“By definition, it would entirely prevent families and friends from talking publicly about their loss, whether via a news publisher or themselves on social media, for example. Moreover, unless the family and friends effectively also anonymise themselves, there is likely to be a significant risk of jigsaw identification… Importantly, it would be entirely disproportionate for such good faith activities to result in the criminal conviction of family and friends… Not only would it detrimentally impact their freedom of expression, but it would discourage them from expressing themselves from fear of prosecution.” - STV Group PLC

However other respondents, particularly victim support organisations, did not share these concerns as they thought it would be possible for those bereaved to share their stories without identifying themselves or the victim, and referred to examples of anonymised interviews and media engagement. Some, more commonly victim support organisations and individuals who had been bereaved, often raised that the introduction of anonymity with the option for it to be waived would have a positive impact for those bereaved as it would give them choice and control in how they engaged with the media.

However, some respondents 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. For example, 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. This is covered in more detail in the section above on waivers.

Police investigation

Question 4: Do you consider that an extension to anonymity would have an impact on the ability of the police to investigate a crime? Please provide details.

30 respondents provided an answer to this question directly. Other respondents addressed this issue in comments made throughout their response.

Many respondents across all categories recognised the importance of the police being able to fully investigate crimes.

Of those respondents that were of the view that an extension of anonymity would have a detrimental impact on the ability of the police to investigate a crime, the majority were media organisations. It was commonly raised in these responses that 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 bring forward witnesses who may not have otherwise realised they held important information. It was also suggested that without the name of the victim, any media coverage may be less effective and the audience are likely to be less engaged.

“An anonymity extension would have a significant impact on the ability of the police to implement an effective media strategy to appeal for information and witnesses in order to help identify and bring to justice a perpetrator if media organisations cannot publish the victim’s name, picture or any meaningful detail about the case or circumstances if there is a risk that that detail might lead to identification. There is a real risk that this lack of context and information may mean that members of the public who possess information of significance to the investigation may not even know this information is in their possession.

The police often work with families to publicise crimes in the pursuit of justice. Anonymity would significantly impact the amount of media coverage given to a case - and the effectiveness of that coverage. The media would be diminished as a powerful tool in such cases.

… An anonymity extension is likely to diminish the number of people who will listen or take interest in a police appeal for information relating to an anonymous victim. Not through a lack of compassion but through unknowingly having been deprived of context, connection, commentary, and responsible media analysis. ” – STV Group PLC

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.

Some respondents, particularly individuals who had been bereaved, did not believe an extension of anonymity to child homicide victims would impact on the ability of the police to investigate and referred to examples of anonymity in other types of case or for other individuals, for example where the accused is a child or for child victims of sexual offences.

Other respondents suggested that there are things that could be done to ensure that any extension of anonymity does not interfere with the ability of the police to investigate such as providing an exemption to restrictions for this purpose. When considering if information should be released, some respondents suggested that a balance must be struck between the potential benefit to the investigation and the potential harm to those bereaved and that the police are already adept at dealing with these sensitive decisions in other types of cases.

“Ensuring that police can continue to fulfil their functions is crucial, but we do not believe the proposed changes would impact on this. There are existing arrangements for example in respect of missing person cases that can be built upon, as well as existing guidelines and processes for Police Scotland liaising with families to agree communication strategies, as well as Police Scotland working with COPFS regarding the publication of information in criminal investigations. Whilst there may be risks, for example that a child identified previously as a missing person would be identified should the case develop into a homicide investigation, these risks exist currently for example where a missing person case develops into a criminal investigation where that individual is now a victim. These risks would appear to be unavoidable.” - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

Some victim support organisations specifically raised missing person cases, where the name of a child might be shared while they are missing but when they are found alive, the name has then been retrospectively redacted from media coverage due to criminality involving sexual offences:

“We believe the same approach can and should apply in cases where the child dies as a result of crime, regardless of whether or not there is a sexual element. This also demonstrates the ability to limit the widespread identification of the victim and their family by the general public outside of the local community.

It is important to highlight that the identity of children who are victims of a sexual crimes are protected and it is not considered that this impedes police investigations. Further, media outlets do not report on sexual crimes where incest is involved. We believe that if the Police can successfully investigate sexual crimes while protecting anonymity, the same can be done for child homicide cases.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Some respondents did not offer a direct view on this issue as they thought the Police were best placed to answer this.

Freedom of expression

Question 5: Do you consider that an extension to anonymity would have an impact on freedom of expression? Please provide details.

29 respondents provided an answer to this question directly. Other respondents addressed this issue in comments made throughout their response.

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’).

Other respondents expressed concerns specifically about the impact if anonymity was introduced with no option to waive.

On the other hand, some respondents, primarily those who had been bereaved, indicated they did not think there would be an impact on freedom of expression and stressed the importance of protecting the family.

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 (covered in more detail in the section above on bereaved talking about loss).

“It is a fundamental error in thinking about and stress-testing proposals in this area to think that free expression is primarily or exclusively the preserve of a sometimes intrusive media. Reporting restrictions affect not only broadcasters and national publishers, but also ordinary people, including bereaved families and friends.” – individual, legal professional

Although the majority of respondents that addressed this issue stated that an extension of anonymity would have an impact on freedom of expression, many noted that this is a qualified right and that restrictions to it can be justified in some circumstances.

“it is important to remember, that the right to freedom of expression, as provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998, is not unqualified. As the ECHR, Art.10(2) makes clear, lawful and proportionate encroachment on the right is permissible in certain limited circumstances and those that are particularly applicable here are the prevention of (another) crime and public safety. As is discussed in the Consultation Paper, freedom of expression is already curtailed in other contexts. Thus, while freedom of expression would be impacted by the reforms under discussion, that is no reason to rule them out.” – individual, legal professional

The need to balance competing rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy, in order to determine if an encroachment on them is appropriate was commonly raised. Many respondents raised that to be justified, an intrusion on freedom of expression must be proportionate, with any restriction of the right being the least intrusive possible, and should only be introduced to prevent worse harms.

“There is a balancing exercise to be struck between protecting the vulnerable, especially other children who are caught up in these tragedies, and ensuring that the media can play its essential role by reporting on matters of public interest. Responsibility for deciding how to strike this balance is ultimately a matter for the Scottish Government, but it is clear that the proposed extension would represent a very significant change to the existing position, with uncertain impacts. Preventing the publication of material identifying the victim would seriously constrain reporting and the freedom of family members and the wider community to communicate with each other about what happened for an indeterminate amount of time.” – Independent Press Standards Organisation

“It is our position that it is not a robust response to legislate where the statistical basis for intervention remains so small (even although the subject matter may be heart rending) when contrasted against the significantly increased restriction on freedom of expression envisaged by such change.” – Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

Some media organisations also raised in their responses that an extension of anonymity could cause media outlets to “err on the side of caution” in their reporting of such cases and would therefore have a “chilling effect” on the media.

However, other respondents raised that anonymity of deceased child victims would only prevent the name of the child being covered and would not prevent general reporting of the case so would not meaningfully limit the media’s freedom of expression. Some noted that this already successfully happens for victims of sexual offences.

“Anonymity is extended in other legal arenas such as to victims of rape due to the impact on victims and their families. Children who have been murdered and their families are likewise victims. Restrictions on freedom of expression can be justified in the face of potential harm to others, but should be carefully balanced decision taken by skilled and experienced professionals. In our view, this is not a simple tick list decision however. It requires skilled and experienced risk assessment as to the risks of harm and thoughtful liaison with the families of the victim.” – Scottish Association of Social Work

“The media would still be able to report on cases of child homicide, just not identify the victim. This allows the public interest to be served whilst maintaining the privacy and dignity of the victim and their family. The media already anonymously reports on sexual crimes (IPSO, 2021), which is evidence that this practice can be extended to child homicide cases.

… Media representatives warn of the ‘chilling effect’ this measure may have on reporting. We do not accept this assertion. We firmly believe it is still possible to report on child homicide cases while ensuring the anonymity of the victim.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

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: those of the deceased child, surviving child siblings, other family members, the general public or the media.

“Rights and principles like freedom of expression, privacy, public interest and open justice will always require to be balanced in decision making. Like most decisions regarding reporting restrictions there are balances to be struck, often balances that are highly case specific. We need to consider whose freedom of expression and privacy is the priority here - that of the deceased victim, their next of kin and surviving relatives, or of those who are publicly identifying the child, including media outlets? We also need to consider the differing motivations for such expression and that these motivations may change. Within these considerations, the contested concept of public interest is important” - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

Many respondents throughout their response referred to the protection of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), with a range of views on whose rights should be protected and prioritised. Some also referred to the Scottish Government’s commitment to ‘getting it right for every child’ (GIRFEC).

Comparisons were made by many respondents with the rights and protections for a child perpetrator and those, or lack of, for a deceased child victim. It was often suggested, particularly by individuals who had been bereaved, that upon death the child victim loses rights, and comparisons were also drawn with the anonymity of surviving victims of sexual abuse.

“I believe that victims under the age of 18 who die as a result of crime should be given the same rights and protections as a living victim under the age of 18 who is the victim of another crime, for example sexual abuse or assault.

… The current legislation in Scotland gives anonymity to perpetrators in Scotland who are under the age of 18, we are not asking too much. Why should victims not be given the same right when they are killed as a result of a crime?” – individual, bereaved family member or friend

“However I believe there should be a law protecting the confidentiality of the child victim. The poor child deserves to still have rights especially as the right to live has been taken away from them. Not giving them this dignity as we would in life means we are saying they don't matter anymore. You can understand why its hard for victims families to witness how many rights the perpetrator has. No one protects the victim and in turn the family.” - individual, bereaved family member or friend

“Where there is a crime with a sexual element and the child also dies as a result of that crime, then the child loses their right to anonymity. This results in details of a crime being made available that would not have been disclosed if the child had survived. Families tell us this feels particularly dehumanising and disrespectful (Victim Support Scotland, 2024b).

… We are opposed to child victims losing rights they would otherwise have because they are a victim of homicide.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

However, one respondent disagreed with the view that child homicide victims lose rights to anonymity on death, as the statutory restrictions currently available to victims of other crimes (including orders under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and section 27 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995) are discretionary and do not automatically apply to all children in all circumstances.

“For this reason, it is not a correct statement of the current law that child victims lose anonymity rights enjoyed by other children involved in the criminal justice process. As currently framed, the 1995 Act currently only protects some children from publicity in connection with criminal cases, and then only from traditional broadcasters and publications.” – individual, legal professional

Other respondents, mainly from media organisations, suggested that the rights under discussion, particularly privacy, do not continue after death:

“If this is analysed as being a right owed to the dignity of the victim, that would be a startling change to the Scottish legal system’s approach to the consequences of death… It is a general legal principle that an individual’s privacy and reputational rights fall away upon death and are not transferable to others.” – STV Group PLC

One respondent went on to explain that although the privacy rights of the deceased are not protected, European case law indicates that the rights of surviving family members are:

“…it is not the deceased’s right to privacy which is therefore protected, but how the reputation of the deceased member impacts on the private life of surviving family members, which can include siblings… While it remains the case that it is not the deceased person who is centred in the case, but the rights of their surviving relatives, it does seem that there has been a shift towards more extensive protection in recent case law which should factor into the analysis of this proposal in human rights terms.” – individual, legal professional

Many respondents referred to the rights of the surviving family, particularly child siblings, to have a private, family life. The impact of media coverage on surviving child siblings more generally is covered above at page 12.

The rights of surviving children was discussed in detail particularly in responses from children’s organisations and victims support organisations. Key points raised were:

• “The rights and views of surviving siblings should be paramount in decisions.” – Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice
• although there is a balancing of rights to freedom of expression and privacy for all surviving family members, regardless of age, the right to privacy of a child is likely to be stronger due to their inherent vulnerability
• children also have additional rights and protections under the UNCRC:

“The UNCRC, in Article 37, provides an obligation on the State to “take all appropriate measures to promote the physical and psychological recovery…” of child victims. Surviving siblings should be regarded as secondary victims” – Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland

However, some respondents did not think that the age of the bereaved should be the main indicator of the need for anonymity and that a more nuanced approach would be necessary:

“It may be more appropriate to use the circumstances of the loss, rather than age of siblings, to inform whether anonymity is appropriate in a particular instances. Age of children is not the defining indicator of their capacity to understand. More important is the support they have from their parents, other caregivers, schools and peer group. Withholding information from children due to perceptions of age can cause long term harm, affecting relationships in the years to come. Children need honest information that they can trust, digest and emotionally process. Parents and siblings should get the professional support they need to navigate this very difficult stage within their loss and grief.” – Scottish Association of Social Work

One respondent noted that there could be implications for children’s rights more generally and these must be taken into consideration:

“The implications for children, including surviving siblings, but also other children who may be involved in a child’s death, including witnesses, other non-deceased victims, and any child suspect/accused, need to be fully considered. A child rights and wellbeing impact assessment will be required.” – Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

Open justice

Question 6: Do you consider that an extension to anonymity would have an impact on open justice? Please provide details

29 respondents provided an answer to this question directly. Other respondents addressed this issue in comments made throughout their response.

Of those respondents that thought an extension to anonymity would have a significant negative impact on open justice,^[3] the majority were media organisations. Terms commonly used to show the strength of feeling on this included: “a serious restriction to”, “a major encroachment on”, “antithetical to” and “detrimental to” the principle of open justice:

“For journalists and the public, anonymity is probably the most intrusive of all restrictions. To anonymise the dead victim of an indictable crime of the utmost gravity would, substantially, eviscerate open justice. Leaving aside the very large overlap between familial relationship and criminal guilt in child homicide cases, permanently to conceal the identity of any victim of unlawful killing is starkly antithetical to open justice.” - DC Thomson & Co. Ltd

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. This was seen to compound the impact anonymity for child homicide victims would have on open justice.

Others offered explanation as to what they understood open justice to mean and the role the media play in it.

“For most people, open justice means understanding a court case and its outcomes. The platform for doing this is media reporting. Media reporting is based on telling human stories that connect with audiences. Anonymity in such important cases will significantly restrict the level and quality of reporting and reduce the amount of people who know about a case and how justice was served.

Transparency and reporting of criminal cases is key to ensure that perpetrators and those involved in enforcing the law are held to account. This is vital to improve public confidence in the justice system.” - STV Group PLC

“Generally, the work of the courts must be accessible to the public. Very few members of the public are in a position to attend at a court to observe proceedings and, whilst sentencing statements and judgments are published on SCTS websites, the principal conduit of information about court cases is the media.” – Senators of the College of 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.

“We do not believe that these changes will fundamentally impact on open justice. Justice will still be seen to be served and cases will still be able to be reported on, just without information that identifies the child and therefore in a manner that affords greater protection to deceased children and their families.

We recognise the challenges of jigsaw identification and that these changes could inevitably mean parents who murder their child are not identified. However, this could be beneficial to any other surviving siblings, avoiding the potential stigma these children could experience. There will also be learning from approaches in other cases involving child victims where offences are committed by a family member who benefit from reporting restrictions for example cases of incest.” – Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

“The Consultation Paper refers to open justice requiring court proceedings to be open to the public and transparency in reporting on criminal cases and these are important aspects of it. However, that does not mean that the public is – or needs to be – entitled to know about every aspect of every case. In short, a distinction can be drawn between there being a “public interest” is having certain information and (the more prurient members of) the public simply “being interested”.

… The sort of restrictions under discussion would prevent naming deceased child victims, publishing photographs of them or reporting information that might reasonably lead to their identification. These restrictions would not prevent reporting of the fact that the crime had been committed, the essence of it (nature of the crime, geographic location, details of suspects and so forth), the police investigation or legal proceedings relating to it.” - individual, legal professional

Other respondents noted that, like freedom of expression, constraints and restrictions to open justice can be justified and referred to factors to be taken in to consideration including harm to family members and the public interest (covered in more detail below).

“It is important to acknowledge that open justice is not without constraints and restrictions… The media are accustomed to operating within court-imposed restrictions. If anonymity for child victims is implemented, this would be a small restriction for the press but would make coverage of the case significantly less distressing to the family and surviving siblings.” - Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Public interest

There were no specific questions on public interest in the consultation paper. However, this was a theme that came up often in responses, particularly in relation to freedom of expression and open justice.

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.

“… child homicide is one of the most disturbing crimes to rend the social fabric and to engage the public interest in its public prosecution.” – Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

“To report accurately the essentials of what happens in a public court is a matter of definitive public interest, not a proprietary private right.” - BBC Scotland

“The truth matters. Facts prevents fake news, rumours and speculation to proliferate online uncorrected and there is a public interest in transparency when a death occurs. The death of an individual is not an entirely private matter.” – ITN

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, with some victim support organisations also calling for more robust tests to evaluate what is in the public interest.

Other comments suggested that the public interest is one factor to be weighed up in considering a number of competing rights including freedom of expression, privacy and open justice and that the balance will vary case to case.

“Rights and principles like freedom of expression, privacy, public interest and open justice will always require to be balanced in decision making. Like most decisions regarding reporting restrictions there are balances to be struck, often balances that are highly case specific... Within these considerations, the contested concept of public interest is important” - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

“An extension to anonymity could have an impact on open justice, as it would restrict reporting on investigations into persons suspected of causing a child death if their identity could lead to the child being identified. This may be justifiable on occasions where the public interest is outweighed by potential harm to wider family members were the circumstances of the child death to become public knowledge. Each case will be different and require a nuanced and skilled approach to making these decision which is why we think blanket legislation is not the answer that families need.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Public understanding and education

Question 15: To what extent do you think it is important that the wider public understand anonymity provisions?

29 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

The majority of respondents that responded to this question thought 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.

Other respondents also 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, and if due to this lack of understanding they were to share prohibited information online this would risk undermining the restrictions.

“In general it is important that the wider public understand anonymity provisions however, this is a complex area of law which private individuals may not associate with their own use of social media, for example, believing that posting as a private individual to a group of friends and acquaintances does not present a breach of anonymity. If the intention is to criminalise breaches of anonymity, it is essential that the wider public have easily available, easily understood explanations of anonymity provisions.” – Scottish Association of Social Work

One respondent commented that without public understanding of any extension of anonymity there would be a risk that this “could give rise to confusion and suspicion, with the perverse outcome that trust in outlets behaving responsibly – by complying with the law – could be damaged. Such misunderstanding and speculation can lay the ground for misinformation and suggestions of a “cover-up”.” – Independent Press Standards Organisation

A small number of respondents also suggested that if the public were to understand the anonymity provisions and reasons for them, this may reduce the expectation of, and demand for, extensive details in these cases.

Although many thought wider public understanding of anonymity provisions was crucial, a number of respondents suggested this would be challenging with some even stating it would be impossible.

Some respondents, mainly individuals who had been bereaved, did not think public understanding of anonymity provisions was important. This was confirmed in responses from some victim support organisations who, although they did see value in wider public understanding, reported that:

“Families bereaved by crime tell us that they do not consider that the public at large necessarily need to understand anonymity provisions. This is because families, staff and volunteers do not generally view the wider public as being responsible for the harm they have experienced (Victim Support Scotland, 2024b). Families say that the key groups who need to understand the measures are:

• The bereaved families themselves,
• The media,
• Victim support organisations,
• Police Family Liaison Officers,
• Other agencies in the criminal justice system.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Question 16: What can be done to increase public understanding of anonymity provisions?

26 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

A wide range of suggestions were received from respondents as to what can be done to increase public understanding of anonymity provisions including:

• a widespread public awareness campaign and communications strategy including leaflets and social media
• bespoke information produced for those who have been bereaved, those that support them and for the media
• including a statement on media articles explaining why the victim has not been named and encouraging the public not to speculate on the identity of the victim or share details on social media
• sharing examples of what is permitted by law and what is not
• sharing lived experience of bereaved families and the impact coverage has had on them
• keeping the legislation as simple and easy to understand as possible and also consistent/aligned with other provisions relating to anonymity

One respondent suggested this was part of the wider challenge of public legal education and suggested that much more should be done to tackle that including mandatory legal education in schools and stated that “part of the challenge here is that that (inexplicably) many members of the public do not seem to find law interesting until it affects them.” – individual, legal professional

Another respondent suggested that the money from financial penalties for breach of anonymity provisions could be used to “educate people on the harm their words cause to the victims family” – individual, bereaved family member or friend

Question 17: What group of people do you think it would be hardest to educate about anonymity provisions?

30 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

Question 18: How might this group be accessed and educated?

26 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

The table below sets out some of the suggestions of groups that would be difficult to educate about anonymity provisions and how they might be accessed and educated

Group	How to access/educate
Social media outlets and users including people using non-traditional forms of media to access, create and share news (examples included bloggers and true crime creators)	social media campaign sharing information in both traditional and alternative media
Children and young people	educated in schools social media advertising ensure information is given in a way that children and young people can process and understand it
The media	training financial penalties
Family members	trauma informed education from Family Liaison Officers and key workers from support organisations bespoke literature explaining restrictions in clear language
General public	broad awareness campaign reminders to the public about the provisions during child homicide investigations

One respondent stated that “While people may be grouped into categories using age, sex, gender or other personal characteristics for ease of identification or discussion, no group acts in a homogenous way. It is impossible therefore to determine which group of people might be harder to educate about anonymity provisions.” - Scottish Association of Social Work

Enforcement of anonymity and social media

Question 22: To what extent do you think that the legislative options proposed are proportionate and enforceable? Please give reasons for your answer.

Respondents were asked to what extent they thought the four options put forward in the consultation paper were proportionate and enforceable. 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 majority that responded to this question disagreed that full anonymity restrictions with no waiver (19 out of 23) and no automatic anonymity but can apply for court order (16 out of 23) are proportionate and enforceable options. Views on the proportionality of the status quo with non-legislative actions and no automatic anonymity but can apply for a court order were more mixed.

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

Answer to Q22	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Strongly Agree	2	2
Agree	3	3
Neither Agree nor Disagree	5	5
Disagree	5	5
Strongly Disagree	5	5
Total	20	20

Of the 20 respondents that provided an answer to this question 5 either agreed or strongly agreed, 5 neither agreed or disagreed, and 10 either disagreed or strongly disagreed that no anonymity but with non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit was a proportionate and enforceable option.

The majority of respondents that answered this question did not offer any comments on their reasoning, however one individual did state that: “While this option would not be disproportionate it is unlikely to be effective by itself” – individual, legal professional

2. Full anonymity restrictions (no waiver)

Answer to Q22	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Strongly Agree	2	2
Agree	0	0
Neither Agree nor Disagree	2	2
Disagree	7	7
Strongly Disagree	12	11
Total	23	22

Of the 23 respondents that provided an answer to this question 2 either agreed or strongly agreed, 2 neither agreed or disagreed, and the vast majority (19) either disagreed or strongly disagreed that full anonymity (no waiver) was a proportionate and enforceable option.

3. Automatic anonymity with option to waive

Answer to Q22	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Strongly Agree	7	7
Agree	5	5
Neither Agree nor Disagree	3	3
Disagree	1	1
Strongly Disagree	8	7
Total	24	23

Of the 24 respondents that provided an answer to this question 12 either agreed or strongly agreed, 3 neither agreed or disagreed, and 9 either disagreed or strongly disagreed that automatic anonymity with option to waive was a proportionate and enforceable option.

Some victim support organisations that thought this option was proportionate stated that “It is comparable to anonymity measures currently in place for victims of sexual crimes, which are readily enforced. We do not see any reasons why this could not be enforced in the same way” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

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

Answer to Q22	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Strongly Agree	0	0
Agree	3	3
Neither Agree nor Disagree	4	4
Disagree	9	9
Strongly Disagree	7	6
Total	23	22

Of the 23 respondents that provided an answer to this question 3 either agreed or strongly agreed, 4 neither agreed or disagreed, and 16 either disagreed or strongly disagreed that no automatic anonymity but can apply for court order (with the potential for non-legislative actions, such as a media toolkit) was a proportionate and enforceable option.

Some respondents commented that this option placed a disproportionate burden on bereaved family members at a time they are grieving.

There was a consensus in the responses from media organisations that none of the legislative options proposed were “necessary or proportionate”. Comments included:

“It is a disproportionate and impractical move, and the inevitable difficulties it would encounter and anomalies it would create could lead to even more draconian restrictions.” – Newsbrands Scotland

“thankfully the position remains that the level of child homicide remains at a very low level. It is our position that it is not a robust response to legislate where the statistical basis for intervention remains so small (even although the subject matter may be heart rending) when contrasted against the significantly increased restriction on freedom of expression envisaged by such change. – Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

“Given it will be impossible to police social media activity, in practice it will only be reputable media outlets that will be prevented from reporting and publishing information related to such cases. This may add to unfounded theories of media cover-up and will allow misinformation to go unchallenged by traditional news providers. This is dangerous and risks a significant negative social impact.

Anonymity measures will not necessarily stop certain activities raised by families bereaved by crime as a cause for concern. They will not stop people approaching family members, nor questions being asked, nor will they stop distressing posts on social platforms.” – STV Group PLC

Question 14: What do you think are the main challenges to enforcing anonymity restrictions?

30 respondents provided an answer to this question directly.

The most commonly raised theme was social media.

A large number of comments from respondents also raised a lack of public knowledge of the law and the risk of criminalising those with good intentions as challenges to enforcing anonymity restrictions

Some respondents also raised cross-border issues, this is covered in more detail below from page 57.

Social media

Many respondents, from across all respondent types, highlighted the difficulty in monitoring social media content and enforcing any restrictions particularly as it is not often clear or easy to establish who the “publisher” of such information is. It was often raised in responses from media organisations that it would not be appropriate to have a “two tier system” in which mainstream/traditional media was restricted but social media was not with some suggesting that the content online and on social media is often more problematic than what is covered in traditional media.

The ease and speed at which information can be circulated and shared on social media, and the difficulty in getting content removed from platforms once it has been posted, was commonly raised. Some respondents also noted that as the mainstream/traditional media outlets would be restricted they could not then correct any misinformation that may be circulated online.

“Social media has made a difference. It is very difficult to police and it is instant. Information about something that has happened locally can now be circulated whilst an incident is happening – or whilst emergency services provide a response. With or without actual reporting local knowledge of an incident, particularly a serious incident will spread. Sometimes without mainstream reporting the detail of an incident can be distorted and can become the ‘truth’ that is heard by a community. This can also be very damaging and mainstream reporting might need to be used to quash or quell the rumour mill.” - Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration

“the media would be prevented from acting as a trusted news provider as it would be unable to “set the record straight” where fake news, unsubstantiated rumours and accusations are free to spread through social media without accountability.” – STV Group PLC

“It may also have the unintended effect of restraining responsible actors from correcting misinformation or misunderstandings” – Independent Press Standards Organisation

However some respondents, particularly victim support organisations, while recognising the challenges with social media, suggested that often the content online has stemmed from something that has been published by traditional media. They were also of the view that that the challenges with social media should not be a reason not to regulate other coverage:

“Whilst it may be tempting to view traditional media coverage and social media content as two distinct issues, families tell us that social media content that traumatises the family often originates from publications by traditional media outlets… it would be wrong to let the perfect be the enemy of the good and opt not to regulate press coverage just because it is deemed too difficult to regulate social media.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

One bereaved individual suggested that content online would not be so problematic if fewer details about the crime were released in the first instance:

“Some would slip under the net but if details were instantly kept confidential they would not have much to report on regarding details. These for example cause of death, injuries ect should be sealed.” – individual, bereaved family member or friend

Lack of public knowledge and over-criminalisation

A large number of comments from respondents suggested that, should anonymity provisions be introduced, a lack of public knowledge of them and understanding of how they applied could be challenging for their enforcement as it could result in a great deal of information being online and on social media and therefore “any anonymity law would be more honoured in the breach”. – Newsbrands Scotland

However, other respondents suggested this could be remedied by awareness raising and education. This is covered in more detail in the section above on public understanding and education.

Linked to this, some respondents raised that many breaches of anonymity provisions are likely to be committed by those acting with good intentions, for example those who have been impacted by the loss of the child paying respects on social media and their criminalisation is not in the interests of anyone.

One respondent highlighted that anonymity provisions may have a disproportionate impact on children and young people as the dominant users of social media.

Children and young people could be disproportionately impacted by such changes as they are high users of online/social media platforms, are more likely to be peers or siblings of child homicide victims, and are still developing and going through intense physiological, emotional and cognitive change (see O'Rourke et al, 2020, literature review submitted to the Scottish Sentencing Council). The negative consequences of criminalisation are well established, and children should be protected from this as far as possible. – Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

To counter this, some respondents suggested that those who breach anonymity provisions and are acting in a professional capacity or in a position of trust should be held to a higher standard and face more serious consequences.

Penalties

Question 19: What do you think would be an appropriate penalty for breaching an anonymity restriction?

28 respondents provided an answer to this question.

The most commonly suggested penalty for breaching an anonymity restriction was a fine. Some respondents suggested that this should be higher for media organisations than for individual members of the public and supported similar penalties to those proposed under the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.^[4] Further comments suggested that any financial penalty should be large enough to act as a deterrent to large media organisations who may have larger resources.

“The use of maximum penalties allows the judiciary to make decisions based on the circumstances of the case but addresses the current issues that penalties set at the current low levels may be seen as a “risk worth taking” when compared with the benefits for the individual or organisation involved, be this through sales revenue or social media/online presence.” - Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

There were some suggestions from respondents as to what the money raised by fines for breaches should be used for including: used to educate people on the impact of the breach and added to the Victims Surcharge Fund to be used to support families bereaved by crime.

Other suggestions for appropriate penalties included: loss of internet use, community service, confiscation of profits from stories in breach to then be given to bereaved family, and civil recourse/ a right to sue for the bereaved family.

Some respondents raised concerns about the criminalisation of the general public, particularly children and those who have been bereaved, who may be well intentioned and therefore suggested that intention would be an important consideration.

“This is a complicated area. Provisions already exist in law for fines or potential imprisonment for breach of reporting restrictions. The application of this to the general public would depend of the facts of each case. As noted above, anonymity restrictions could criminalise schoolfriends paying tribute on social media. The effects of this may be as damaging as a deliberate leak by an adult aware of the legal constraints, but it may not be in the interests of justice or policing to seek to criminalise children in this way.” - National Union of Journalists

“We are concerned about the range of people who could be penalised for breaching restrictions, particularly family members who are grieving and for whom publicly sharing information about their loved ones could be an important part of the grieving process. We also recognise members of the public or community who may be impacted by the child’s death and publicly share well intentioned information could be at risk of being criminalised, underlining the importance of developing understanding of provisions. We think understanding the intent behind sharing information will be important when penalties are being considered and proportionality of response... We wonder if there could be a greater focus on penalties for organisations who breach restrictions, including social media platforms where information is shared, or penalties in terms of fines being proportionate to income/ revenue raised from the publication of such information for individuals or organisations, which could be higher than the current maximum penalties.” – Children and Young People’s Centre for Justice

Other respondents did not think there should be any new restrictions and therefore there should be no penalties.

Cross-border application

Question 20: To what extent do you agree that any extension of anonymity to deceased child victims in Scotland would need to apply to the rest of the UK to be effective?

Answer to Q20	All responses	Responses excluding ‘campaign plus’ responses
Strongly Agree	15	14
Agree	5	5
Neither Agree nor Disagree	6	6
Disagree	0	0
Strongly Disagree	1	1
Total	27	26

27 respondents answered this question, with a majority (20) stating that they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’. 6 respondents ‘neither agreed nor disagreed’ and only one ‘strongly disagreed’.

Of those respondents that 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”.

Some media organisations commented that anonymity provisions that did not apply UK-wide “would create a highly fragmented approach to news reporting in the UK, creating confusion for families and communities and leading to bizarre scenarios where families in Scotland can talk about their grief to an English broadcaster, but not a Scottish broadcaster.” – Scottish Media Lawyers Society (and associated campaign plus responses)

It was often raised by respondents that the proximity of the rest of the UK would mean that the identity of a victim, anonymised only in Scotland, would be easily accessible both physically in printed media and through online national media outlets which would negate the effectiveness of any reporting restrictions.

“Otherwise, a situation could arise where an English-based broadcaster could name a child homicide victim in Scottish proceedings, but a Scottish-based broadcaster could not. Without application UK-wide, the provisions will not achieve the desired outcomes. They would prevent trusted Scottish news publishers and broadcasters from responsible reporting, but audiences would still have full access to the story on multiple online platforms as provided by media companies based elsewhere in the UK.” – STV Group PLC

Respondents also commonly raised that news is not restricted by geographical boundaries due to the availability of news and information online through both online media outlets and social media.

Some respondents from media organisations also highlighted the operational difficulties and impracticalities that having different rules in different UK jurisdictions would have for national media outlets:

“Further from a national news perspective it would be totally impractical producing different reports on national television and online. It does not reflect the reality of how information flows in the modern world” - ITN

“Leaving aside the issue of the internet, the same content is often published, for example, sister titles Daily Record and The Mirror, or The Scottish Sun and The Sun. To have separate stories in separate editions is ineffective. Broadcast media does not follow the Scottish border: ITV Border, for example, covers both. Full anonymity will be almost impossible to enforce and would be very expensive to police.” - National Union of Journalists

Some respondents noted that if the Scottish Government did want anonymity provisions to extend to the rest of the UK, this would require a section 104 order under the Scotland Act and for this agreement from the UK Government would be crucial.

Other respondents, although of the view that extension to the rest of the UK would be necessary to be workable, commented that the effectiveness would be limited as non-UK media outlets could still publish identifying information.

However, some victim support organisations although in favour of extending any anonymity provisions UK wide, were not of the view that restrictions in Scotland alone would be ineffective. They suggested that this would still be an improvement and could still reduce the re-traumatisation for bereaved families.

“Even if UK media outlets do not report anonymously outwith Scotland, VSS believes this would still improve reporting standards within Scotland, by reducing the number of triggering articles families are exposed to. Additionally, the less traction a story gets initially, as well being less geographically relevant, the less likely it is to be picked up by other news sources. Families impacted by crime often tell us that it is local media outlets that are most likely to report the story for years after the fact, on anniversaries of the death, the child’s birthday and when there is an update for the perpetrator (Victim Support Scotland, 2024b). Anonymising coverage of child homicide, even at a local level, would mitigate the situation and support the family’s wellbeing.” – Victim Support Scotland and Victims Organisations Collaboration Forum Scotland

Some individuals who have been bereaved and victim support organisations stated that if Scotland were to extend anonymity for child victims of homicide, other jurisdictions may then follow suit.

Another concern relating to jurisdiction was raised by some media organisations. They questioned what would determine if Scottish anonymity provisions would apply – would it be related to the location of the offence or the domicile of the victim.