Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd - The Case of Child Killers

Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2001] H.R.L.R. 19
Family Division 

8 January 2001

Brief Summary:
The two petitioners had been convicted of murdering a young boy when they were also children.  As the reached the age of majority, they sought to renew the injunctions preventing the media from releasing information relating to their identities.  They feared that if that information were released, the notoriety of their crime would cause them to be pursued by members of the public, which would interfere with their family lives and their safety.  The court ultimately found that the risk to the petitioners' rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the ECHR outweighed the media defendants' rights to expression under Article 10.  The injunctions were issued.

The Facts:
The two petitioners killed a two-year-old boy when they were 10 years old.  The facts and the circumstances of the murder were particularly shocking and distressing and were widely publicised in the media. They were convicted of the murder and detained as minors until they were 18 years old, at which time they were to be paroled.  At that time, they sought to continue an injunction against media groups from publishing information regarding their identities, appearances, and locations.

Human Rights Argument:
The claimants argued that the rights to life, the prohibition on torture, and the right to family and private life in Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention required that the injunctions remain in force.  They argued that there was clear evidence of a specific, preventable, serious and continued threat to their lives, and a real likelihood that the press intended to publish the information.  The defendants argued that Article 10's right to freedom of expression gave them the right to publish this information.  In response, the petitioners relied on the confidential information exception to free expression in Article 10 .

The Holding:

The court balanced the petitioners' Articles 2, 3 and 8 rights against the defendants Article 10 rights. Using evidence provided by the petitioners' families (of threats to themselves and pressure from the media for information) and excerpts from media coverage from the time of the murder trial, the court found that the risk to the petitioners' lives was substantial enough to issue the injunctions.  More specifically, the court found that the injunctions were (1) in accordance with the law, (2) necessary in a democratic society to satisfy a strong and pressing need, and (3) proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.  The court therefore granted injunctions to prevent the media in England and Wales from publishing information relating to the identity and whereabouts of the claimants, and (for 12 months) relating to the secure units in which they were held. This injunction included information that had entered the public domain via the internet and other media outside the court's jurisdiction.

Villains?
The two petitioners in this case committed a reprehensible crime against a child while they themselves were children.  Moreover, they sought to protect their own lives from members of the public bent on revenge.  Despite the sympathy I feel towards them because they were so young when their crime was committed, I will err on the side of villainy due to the horrific nature of their crime.  Villains.