An occasional writer's journal

The rampant reporting of a brutal attack on two young British boys, allegedly involving two other boys of the same age, should raise questions about the relevance of reporting restrictions in an age of social networking.

The suspects, aged 11 and 10, were charged with robbery and attempted murder as their alleged victims, aged 11 and nine, continued to receive hospital treatment for serious injuries.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith described the case as “shocking” and the media were quick to reflect public outrage.

However, this brought into question the extent to which details of the case were reported ahead of any charges being brought, and the fairness of any subsequent trial.

The identities of the two arrested boys was not shielded by the media, as the law requires in cases involving juveniles, with tabloid newspapers having revealed details capable of identifying the boys in their local communities. Despite the case being legally “active” for the purposes of preventing contempt of court, neighbours were quoted describing their view of the character of the suspects.

Right-thinking people will expect that the persons responsible for this attack be brought to justice, but justice must be allowed to take its course. Anyone later being asked to serve on a jury might already have taken a prejudicial view of the defendants from what they had learnt from the media of this high-profile case.

There is been a need for the media to show restraint, faced with a demand for information from an increasingly informed public. It is not unthinkable that in the future, increasing numbers of criminal prosecutions could fail because of successful applications by defence lawyers accusing the media of prejudicing court proceedings, identifying juvenile defendants, or defaming the character of their clients.

Although it might not satisfy the appetite of news editors, the “facts” should be allowed to emerge during the process of law.