Names of torture brothers will never be made public
Friday 22 January 2010
Latest in Crime
On Facebook
From the blogs
More than half of Afghanistan’s families live in extreme poverty
Leila is watching her baby intently, as his mouth moves trying to swallow the small blob of yellow p...
Time for a new approach to alcohol
Ambulances were called and three drunk teenagers were brought to my care. One was so drunk we had to...
Bahrain: One year on
I am used to endless lies and criticism from the BNP and its favourite blogster, as well as Islamist...
Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
Why is Europe, which likes to present itself as an opponent of speculative "Anglo-Saxon" finance, li...
Mr Justice Keith today decided that the names of ‘the torture boys’ should never be made public.
Although the victims’ families understandably wanted the brothers to be named, the media did not. Not one national media outlet requested that the order restricting the publication of the boys’ identities be lifted.
Giving his reasons Mr Justice Keith said that the boys themselves would be ostracised by their fellow inmates, should their identities become known. He added it could lead to the units they are being held in coming under siege from the media. He also highlighted his worry that other parents would ask for their children to be transferred so as not to be held in the same unit as such notorious offenders, thus putting strain on other units around the country.
The boys’ family were also cited as a reason for keeping their anonymity. Mr Justice Keith said the family would be pursued by the media and wider public if the names were widely known.
And he said that the boys’ own rehabilitation could suffer. The judge added: “It would have an adverse impact on any incentive they might have to progress their own rehabilitation.”
It is likely that the brothers will be given new identities when they are eventually released, as was the case with Robert Thompson and John Venables.
The judge said that it was “legitimate” to ask why, if their names will be changed anyway, should their current identities be protected? He said that although new identities were possible, they were “way down the line” and so should not be taken into consideration with regards to the Section 39 order which remains in place.
- 1 No secularism please, we're British
- 2 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 3 'Drunk tanks' and minimum prices to help Britain sober up
- 4 Working as a jail torturer ruined my life
- 5 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 6 Reinstate Knox's murder charge, Italian court told
- 7 Caught in his own blast: an Iranian targeting Israel
- 1 Spotify: 1 million plays, £108 return
- 2 How Koscielny became prince of the Emirates
- 3 Apple admits it has a human rights problem
- 4 Mark Steel: If religion is 'marginal', I'm the Pope
- 5 No secularism please, we're British
- 6 Lightning kills an entire football team
- 7 Matthew Norman: There's always the Human Rights Act, Trevor
- 8 Special report: The hungry generation
- 9 I was born to be a killer. Every night I see the Devil in my dreams
- 10 Six Grammys, five years off: Adele puts love before career
Free trial of new Independent iPad app
Get your daily dose of the best of British journalism, sponsored by American Airlines
Win a three-week coastal jaunt
Spend three weeks exploring every nook and cranny of gorgeous Atlantic Canada.
Amazing restaurant offers
Three glasses of free champagne and a special menu at 46 top London restaurants.
Latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Career Services
Day In a Page
No secularism please, we're British




Comments