At the time, there was stringent criticism from a vocal minority expressed online (such as in the comments thread on this site) of the court’s decision to keep secret the names of the adults involved in the Baby Peter case.
Now we know for sure the reasons:
There were two reasons behind the veil of secrecy. The first being the need to protect the identity of Baby Peter’s four siblings.
Connelly has three other children by Baby Peter’s father and gave birth to her youngest, who is Barker’s child, in prison.
The anonymity order was lifted because all four of Connelly’s remaining children are now being cared for.
Barker and Connelly could also not be named initially because they were involved in another trial and there was a risk of prejudice.On 1 May, Barker was convicted of raping a two-year-old girl but Connelly was cleared of a child cruelty charge. (BBC)
In other words: they were kept secret to protect other children and to allow another prosecution to go ahead. There’s no real surprise there, given those are two of the most common reasons for secrecy to be imposed. The only slight surprise (and tragedy) perhaps is that it was for both such reasons rather than only one of them.
Here’s hoping that at least some of the people who expressed such utter certainty that the courts were wrong to have issued that secrecy order are having second thoughts…
6 Comments
Their identity should have been kept secret because there are vigilantes out there who want to torture and kill them.
It is up to the law to punish them, not vigilantes.
Disagree Geoffrey. Criminals should get the same level of protection from crime as the rest of us http://tinyurl.com/nnq6c3. Others who commit crimes do not get anonymity.
I abhore vigilantes, but doubt many criminals do get hurt in revenge attacks. But if they are scared that they might get hurt, then good – they have some idea how baby Peter felt.
A process was being followed, that was not related to these specific criminals, nor to the nature of the case. Its been done before, and it’ll done again. At least the courts knew what the necessary process was, and stuck to it.
Which is a lot more than can be said for those responsible for allowing these crimes to be committed, and for failing to protect the victim. Rather than holding their heads in their hands, they’re seeking claiming compensation for ‘unfair dismissal’ at various tribunals and in the High Court.
Now that’s a process we should all follow very closely, to ensure justice is done.
Clearly, it was right to keep the names confidential and I am also of the view that it was appropriate to now release them. In answer to questions above, the criminals will almost certainly have to be given new identities to protect them from vigilante attacks when they are let out.
One argument which has been repeated by the mainstream media after the names were released is that the anonymity is anachronistic because anyone with access to a computer could easily find out the names and details with a simple search.
However, that seems to miss the point. There is a huge difference between trying to find out the names (which few people would bother with) and just coming across them by reading newspapers or mainstream websites. If they had been published initially, it is unlikely that the second trial could have gone ahead because you would not have been able to find anyone in the country who had failed to read details and know the names.
The courts are the one institution which has come of out of this tragic set of events with its reputation intact and even enhanced.
The main points to reverberate in Local Authority corporate parenting role responsibility is contained in what was stated by Lynn Featherstone M.P. this week that it appears that the most important lesson was not learnt and understood after the similar Social Services debacle of 10 years before, in Haringey- re the Vicroria Climbie Case.
It was publically expressed in the first Laming Report that never again could there be another Victoria Climbie.
It is so painfully evident in all the media coverage, that the two central adults responsible in a household for the death of an innocent 15 month child, did not posses one single thread of love and practical caring for Baby P, whom instead become an object for sadistic behaviour and neglect that is totally beyond human belief, to any normal parent.
The job done by professional community social workers is one of the important ones and it is equally clear that skilled deeper observations must be all be reported, when they visit families suspected of the all forms of child neglect. and appropriate action taken to prevent a further tragedy.
The question as to whether there ought to have been a naming and shaming media embargo is subsidiary to the fact of the failure to detect harm being done to a beautiful child.
Still shocking that social services let this slip. I don’t care how inundated with work you.