Abstract:
Children are afforded a number of different protections when
they encounter the criminal justice system. The need for special
protection stems from the vulnerable position they occupy in
society. When children form part of the criminal justice system
by being an offender, a victim or a witness they may be
subjected to harm. To mitigate against the potential harm that
may be caused, our law provides that criminal proceedings
involving children should not be open to the public, subject to the
discretion of the court. This protection naturally seems at odds
with the principle of open justice. However, the courts have
reconciled the limitation with the legal purpose it serves. For all
the protection the law offers and the lengths that it goes to in
order to protect the identity of children in this regard, it appears
there is an unofficial timer dictating when this protection should
end. The media have been at the forefront of this conundrum to
the extent that they believe that once a child (an offender, victim,
or witness) turns 18 they are free to reveal the child's identity.
This belief, grounded in the right to freedom of expression and
the principle of open justice, is at odds with the principle of a
child's best interests, the right to dignity and the right to privacy.
It also stares incredulously in the face of the aims of the Child
Justice Act and the principles of restorative justice. In the context
of the detrimental psychological effects experienced by child
victims, witnesses, and offenders, this article aims to critically
analyse the legal and practical implications of revealing the
identity of child victims, witnesses, and offenders after they have
turned 18.
