“Too young to be named for legal reasons”

It's not always about retribution Craicon, it's about transparency within the justice system to halt any gossip.

It’s just another of the numerous outdated laws that seriously need updating to reflect true justice in this day and age.

'I wonder how this poor murdered mans', family feel about this, if this had been my son/partner I am fairly sure I would want the KILLER named and therefore shamed for the rest of his life; the problem here is I guess he feelsNO shame.

Yes Megs, shame and humiliation at the top of the list for criminals.

I wonder what the parent/s are like ? This'll be interesting !

gillybob the procedure is still not finished with the guilty plea. And this regardless of the string of previous convictions in his case.

Of course its not over Gizzy48 he still needs to be sentenced. personally I hope he gets life and it means life, but we all know that will not happen.

The 17 year old killer of Ellie Gould who was stabbed to death in her home a few hundred yards from us in May has been named in the press. I believe he has admitted the killing.

Difficult one. I am for the most part in agreement with Anja, and a lot of what gillybob has written. He is a young adult, old enough to join the army, marry and most of all he knew what he was doing, stole the screwdriver and had a dreadful reputation.

I take the point re his family, but they don't seem to be role models anyway.

I was once asked to sign a petition for naming the new identities of the killers of JB. I refused on the grounds that if I was a parent or member of JBs family I would be more that tempted to seek retribution. I could hardly blame the family if this was to happen - they are vulnerable as not only was JB killed in the most horrific circumstances, but the publicity has rolled on and on for years like a superating wound. Their emotions must be so scarred.

Lets be clear about the young man who some of you appear to think should not be named:

At the time of his arrest he had 17 convictions and a total of 31 other crimes under his belt. Including threatening a bus driver with a blade. All of these took place between 2017 and 2019.

@gillybob, no need to shout and display your total ignorance of the English legal system.

He is legally referred to as the Accused until a court deems otherwise, regardless of guilty plea. The plea simply alters the trajectory of the process and does away with the need for a hearing in front of a jury.

It’s unfortunate that people displaying such narrow minded and ill informed opinions are occasionally chosen to serve on a jury.

No need to be rude Craicon (or perhaps rudeness is you default?) I am not in the slightest bit ignorant of the justice system . Although I do not claim to be a legal professional. He has pleaded guilty, there will be no trial, he will be sentenced in December .

It is also unfortunate @Craicon that people who feel more sorrow and sympathy for the scumbag murderer than the innocent victim, are also called upon to serve on a jury , so right back at ya !

People should sit an intelligence test before being called for jury service !!

What ellanvannin said.. with bells on

Gotta say you won that one Gillybob, well said, I’m another one in total agreement with you.

Nobody has actually said what they would do with the information if they had it?!
I doubt it would shame someone who has the mentality to murder another person but it would definitely effect the people around that person, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder but would live with a life sentence of their own, just because of association.

annifrance a 17 year old can NOT marry or join the army without parental consent. So what’s the logic in not being old enough to be autonomous for that but old enough to be an adult in the CJS. There are many other things that 17 year olds are not legally able to do as well.

He'll possibly /probably be named post sentencing.

He SHOULD be named …..it is disgusting that he is able to hide behind the adage 'he is too young to be named'...but obviously NOT too young to murder someone and commit endless previous offences …….doubtless do gooders will object but I do wonder if they would object if it were a member of their family that was the victim ? Working for a forensic psychiatrist in the NHS lawyers would approach us with someone who had commited a crime for a private report on his mental state ….for which they would pay for a non NHS report ...they would ASK if she could issue a statement saying 'the balance of their mind was disturbed ' when the offence was commited ...fortunately she would refuse to say the offender had a mental problem if proven otherwise under examination. The lawyer would try to object …...but she refused to lie. Sometimes (but rarely) the offender was proven to have a mental health issue, whereby the judge normally made provision in his sentencing sometimes referring the offender to a mental health establishment (IF, as in the UK now !) there was a place.

I must admit my knee jerk reaction was to say he should be named. On thinking about it and reading some posts on here I now wonder what purpose it would serve.
Maybe there should be some changes in the law, I don't know but at present this is what it is.
I agree that a good man has been senselessly murdered apparently by a young thug with an appalling history. My sympathy goes out to the family of the murdered man.

In Denmark it is illegal to name a person who is accused of a crime. Only after conviction, or a verdict of not guilty is it possible for the press to name the person.

This applies whether they are children or adults, and quite rightly so, as anyone who has been accused of a crime and named, would probably have their life ruined by it. If they are guilty, well and good, but the innocent must be protected.

gillybob I think the name of the 17 year old is probably widely known in the area where he lives and I have no doubt if I wished to I could probably discover his name. The name will almost certainly be released when he is sentenced. Can you explain exactly why it should be released now? Who would benefit?

grandtanteJE65 that's certainly one way to go, no naming of anyone until conviction or declared not guilty. I do wonder at those so concerned for the possible fallout on a convicted young offender's family, but seemingly totally unconcerned about the possible fallout on the families of any offender aged 18 and over. Why should their family not have the same protections?

17 years ago that boy was a baby. I don't imagine he sprang from the womb as a young thug.

Depends on the parentage/genetics, Laurely. And upbringing !

If you're old enough to willfully kill someone, you're old enough to take the consequences of your actions.