The boy who killed Ava White cannot be named despite being locked up for life with a minimum term of 13 years.
Boy A was sentenced on Monday, having been convicted of murder in May. Throughout the trial, the media was unable to name Boy A, who is now 15, but was 14 at the time of the offence.
This is due to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which affords anonymity to people aged under 18 who are involved in court proceedings. Under the Act, Boy A's identity is protected until he is 18.
READ MORE: Ava White's mum's powerful message to other parents after killer's sentencing
However, after Boy A's conviction, members of the press made an application to the judge - Mrs Justice Yip - for him to be exempt from the act, in order to report the identity of the person directly responsible for Ava's murder.
Additionally, Ava's mum Leanne White expressed her hope that Boy A could be identified in the press, citing "the interests of the public and for the wellbeing of others".
The application to be able to name Boy A was rejected by Mrs Justice Yip. She said that "the public interest in knowing the identity of the person who murdered Ava White is outweighed by the need to safeguard the welfare of the Defendant who is still only 15 years of age".
The judge added that "there are real and immediate concerns for the welfare of the Defendant and his younger siblings if his identity becomes more widely known".
Mrs Justice Yip told Liverpool Crown Court : "All concerned recognise that I have to balance the competing interests of the welfare of the Defendant with the public interest in open reporting. I have conducted that balancing exercise by considering and taking into account all the submissions and relevant evidence.
"This offence has given rise to a very high level of interest locally and nationally. There will undoubtedly be significant public interest in the identity of the Defendant. I well understand why Ava’s family wish him to be named and why the press want to be free to publish a name and picture at the time of sentencing.
"Such details do give a degree of ‘colour’ to the story. However, I am unable to accept that the press are unable to report the story in a way that would serve as a deterrence to others without the Defendant’s identity.
"I also cannot accept that withholding the Defendant’s identity would inhibit proper public scrutiny or debate about the circumstances leading to this terrible offence. I shall take care to frame my sentencing remarks today in a way which allows for as full reporting as possible without identifying the Defendant or his family. This will include detail about his background and circumstances.
"In many cases, the fact that a Defendant will remain in custody past the age of 18 when he can be named anyway may provide a powerful factor in favour of allowing reporting of his identity at the time of sentencing, when the public interest is greatest. In this case, there are real and immediate concerns for the welfare of the Defendant and his younger siblings if his identity becomes more widely known.
"Some of those concerns are likely to dissipate to some degree over the next three years. Within that period, careful consideration can be given to the Defendant’s placement and preparatory work can be done with the other children at a pace that is driven by their welfare, maturity and understanding rather than being rushed. There is therefore a material difference in the likely impact of identifying the Defendant in three years’ time compared with the impact likely to result now.
"Having considered all the circumstances of this case, I have concluded that the public interest in knowing the identity of the person who murdered Ava White is outweighed by the need to safeguard the welfare of the Defendant who is still only 15 years of age. There is evidence that the authorities harbour a genuine concern about their ability to safeguard him within his current placement, where he has been making good progress and displaying good behaviour.
"In considering the Defendant’s welfare, I have taken also into account the safety and welfare of his family since that cannot be wholly separated from his welfare. There is real and significant evidence of a substantial threat to the welfare of the younger children if the Defendant is named now.
"They have only recently settled into their new community and their links are not yet sufficiently established for there to be confidence that they could remain where they are if the Defendant’s identity is disclosed.
"This poses a risk to their stability and to their education. Disruption to the family poses a direct threat to the welfare of the Defendant since it may have the effect of depriving him of his family’s support.
"For all those reasons, I refuse the application for an excepting direction."
READ NEXT:
- Hoax caller claimed IRA were about to blow up Bootle Strand
- Money confiscated from drug dealers set to be handed to Anthony Walker Foundation
- Man lost chance to see mum for last time after thug put him in coma
- Bully punched girlfriend in stomach when he thought she may be pregnant
- Driver to stand trial over death of Co-op worker in M62 crash
