So, were the courts right to keep names secret in the Baby Peter case?

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…

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

6 Comments

  • 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.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Michael Bukola
    The defenders of participatory democracy need to address the inequality that underpins it in the form of those likely to participate. Different social groups re...
  • Ken Westmoreland
    @Laurence Cox Agreed, this is one of the things the British Overseas Voters Forum campaigns on - https://bovf.org.uk/frozen-pensions/...
  • Denis Mollison
    @Laurence Cox Good questions about how you draw constituencies in practice, especially for the most awkward cases. You can find my suggested answers in "STV fo...
  • Laurence Cox
    It is in countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand that British pensioners suffer most because their state pensions are frozen at the rate they received ...
  • John Waller
    The call to forcibly remove Palestinians from Gaza is an outright invitation to commit a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity under internati...