Journalists lose appeal over ban on naming child-killers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.TWO JOURNALISTS yesterday lost their appeal against a court order banning the media from identifying a pair of child killers.
The couple were convicted at the Old Bailey in February of the manslaughter of their 15-month- old son, who died in a urine- soaked pram at the family's north London home in March 1993. The father, who was also convicted of cruelty to three of his other children, was jailed for seven years; the mentally handicapped mother was put on probation after the jury recommended mercy.
The order preventing the baby or his parents being named was imposed by Judge Geoffrey Grigson QC, at the request of Islington social services, with the aim of protecting the six surviving children who are now in its care.
Lord Justice Glidewell, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said they entirely agreed with freelance reporters, Tim Crook and Caroline Godwin, that as a general proposition there was a strong and proper public interest in knowing the identity of those who had committed crimes, 'particularly serious and detestable crimes'. But in this particular case, the court view was that the decision Judge Grigson reached was 'clearly correct'.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments