Killer Mary Bell in legal fight to stay anonymous for life

The mother of a victim of Mary Bell was in court yesterday to hear lawyers argue that the child killer should be granted lifelong anonymity, nearly 35 years after she killed two boys.

Bell was detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure for strangling Martin Brown, four, and Brian Howe, three, in December 1968 when she was 11 years old.

The case echoes that of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who murdered James Bulger, two, in 1993 when they were 10. In a ruling that provoked widespread public debate, the High Court granted Thompson and Venables anonymity and new identities in 2001 to protect them from vigilantes and allow them a chance to lead normal lives.

Both cases balance a child killer's right to a private and family life under the Human Rights Act against the need for open justice.

Yesterday, June Richardson, the mother of Martin Brown, and other family members sat in court as lawyers told Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the head of the Family Division of the High Court, that Bell and her 18-year-old daughter faced harassment and intimidation if their new identities were to be made public.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, for Bell, 46, said: "That is the view of all the experts ­ and that in turn raises the risk of vilification, ostracism and interference with the rehabilitation of Bell and prejudice to her physical and mental well-being."

Mr Fitzgerald said the features that justified a "unique approach" in the case were Bell's extreme youth at the time of the offences and the fact that she had lived under a new identity since being released from prison 23 years ago.

Bell and her daughter are protected under existing injunctions, which expire when the girl turns 19 next month.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, emphasised that there were "very delicate issues" at stake.

"Emotive terms like naming and shaming do tend to rather belittle the importance of open justice and certainly the Attorney General is very concerned that the question of creating zonal secrecy around certain offenders should be very strictly justified on the particular facts of the case."

He added that it was an "exceptional case" that would set a legal precedent.

But Mr Fitzgerald said that no "clear or countervailing" public interest had been identified "these many years on" in knowing precisely where Bell was now or what name she went by. He said that, if her court move failed, there was a risk of "vigilante-style activity".

"Once things get out of hand, one can never tell how far things will go," he said, referring to four incidents in which Bell, who has changed her name three times, had been intimidated or assaulted.

In 1988 she and her daughter were driven out of their village after being exposed. In 1993 Bell was physically attacked in a pub, and in 1998 there was serious harassment after the publication of a book on Bell by Gitta Sereny.

"The police felt unable to guarantee the safety of the claimants and they had to move, although they later moved back," Mr Fitzgerald said. In a recent incident, a woman armed with broken glass attacked Bell's partner.

"All those incidents have happened when the injunction has been in force," said Mr Fitzgerald, "and we submit that things would most probably have been far more serious but for the protection afforded by the injunction." A study of the internet also revealed continuing hostile interest, he said.

A decision in the Bell case will not be given until after Easter.