Why Southport murder suspect Axel Rudakubana has now been named…
The 17-year-old suspect at the centre of the Southport mass stabbing has been named by the media, despite his age usually granting him protection.
On Thursday, Axel Rudakubana appeared in Liverpool Crown Court after being charged with the murder on Monday of Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, in Southport.
He is also charged with the attempted murder of yoga class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes and eight children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as well as with possession of a kitchen knife with a curved blade.
Reporting restrictions under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had previously prevented him being identified.
However, after hearing an application from the prosecution, supported by the defence and media companies, a judge said he would not impose the order, which is usually used to give anonymity to those aged younger than 18 in the criminal courts.
Judge Andrew Menary said: “Continuing to prevent the full reporting has the disadvantage of allowing others to spread misinformation, in a vacuum. Whilst I accept it is exceptional, given his age, principally because he is 18 in six days’ time, I do not make an order under section 45.
Rudakubana's identity had previously been the source of false rumours that had spread on social media, with some incorrectly identifying him as an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK last year. The rumour is believed to have been used by members of the far-right to spark unrest in Southport on Tuesday night.
What is section 45?
In terms of criminal law, when youths appear in court, they are often granted anonymity in a range of settings to protect them.
There is an automatic ban on the identification of children in youth court proceedings, and if a youth appears in the crown court the judge can impose reporting restrictions ensuring their anonymity under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Up until the point of the Section 45 order being implemented legally, they can be named, says journalist and media law expert David Banks.
This is because Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 – which gives anonymity from the moment a criminal investigation begins – hasn't yet been activated, says Banks, creating a "loophole" that could be used, but often isn't.
"Successive governments haven't activated Section 44, which would make everything a whole lot simpler. Then you would never have any question over this issue."
In the Southport case due to the fact Rudakubana will turn 18 next week the judge decided not to implement Section 45 because of the overwhelming media interest.
He would have lost his entitlement to anonymity when he turned 18.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/southport-...151023900.html