Bulger killers await secrecy ruling

The killers led the toddler to his death

By Jane Peel, BBC legal affairs correspondent

The killers of the Merseyside toddler James Bulger are about to learn whether they can continue to live behind a cloak of secrecy.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are to be given new identities when they are released from detention.

Several media organisations oppose the move to extend reporting restrictions covering the killers' treatment and activities now that they are adults.

The High Court in London will rule on the case on Monday, following a five-day hearing in November.

The more detestable the crime the greater the claim would be to anonymity - that cannot be right

Desmond Browne QC

Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were both 10 years old when they murdered two-year-old James in February 1993.

The toddler was abducted from a shopping centre in Bootle, and battered to death. His body was left on a railway line.

Thompson and Venables - now both 18 - have spent almost eight years in separate local authority-run secure units.

They are eligible for parole and it is thought likely they will be released later this year.

Although their names are in the public domain, an injunction bans the media from showing pictures of them since their conviction, or publishing any information of their whereabouts or treatment.

The injunction was originally intended to protect the killers while they were children, but their lawyers want it extended to cover them now they are adults.

'Physical risk'

They have asked the High Court to protect Thompson and Venables, both while they remain in secure accommodation, and once they are released, when they will be given new identities.

At the hearing in November a number of media organisations opposed the move.

Edward Fitzgerald QC for Venables told the court that without the protection the boys would be in real danger from revenge attacks.

He pointed to a threat by James Bulger's father, Ralph Bulger, to hunt the killers down.

Mr Fitzgerald argued that the boys' right to life took precedence over the media's right to freedom of expression.

James Bulger's father Ralph has threatened to track the killers down

Child law expert Allan Levy, QC, said the pair should be protected from vigilantes but the practical difficulties could prevent this.

"The great difficulty is what could happen abroad if a foreign journalist discovered information," he said.

"You would have to rely on the integrity and good sense of people to follow any order that is made."

He also claimed that an injunction was justified on the grounds of confidentiality and privacy.

Desmond Browne QC, representing a number of news organisations, said the courts should prosecute those who make threats against Thompson and Venables, rather than try to gag the press.

He warned that a lifelong injunction could set a precedent, encouraging other notorious criminals to seek anonymity.

Arrangements to give Thompson and Venables new identities will be made by the police, probation service, parole authorities and secure units where the killers are currently being held.

A lifelong injunction to protect an adult who has been convicted of murder would be unprecedented.

Vigilantes

The case of Mary Bell - although similar - is different in one significant respect.

Bell was 11 when she killed two children in 1968.

Disclosure of Bell's new identity and whereabouts is banned by an injunction, but this is in place to protect her young daughter, not Bell herself.

It seems likely that the judge, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, will grant an injunction in some form, although it is difficult to predict its scope.

Mary Bell was tracked down by reporters

It may not go as far as lawyers for Thompson and Venables would like.

She might agree to a ban on revealing the killers' new identities.

This would mean the media could not publish their new names, any photographs or drawings of them, or give their current addresses.

But any injunction might not cover historical information.

For example, the media might be free to report what Thompson and Venables have done in the past, and where they have lived, once they have moved on.

The law of confidentiality would, however, still prevent disclosure of material about their medical treatment or therapeutic care.

'Practical difficulties'

Whatever the judge's decision, there will be practical difficulties.

Any injunction would apply only to media organisations in England and Wales.

Neither can it control what is published on the internet.

If any banned material were to be published, it would open the way for news organisations to go back to court and ask for the injunction to be lifted.