Justin Quill: It’s time to identify young thugs

There’s a major problem in the law which covers the reporting of crimes involving “children” under the age of 18. At times, it simply makes no sense and it’s got to change because the safety of Victorians is being put at risk, writes Justin Quill.

There’s a major problem in the law which covers the reporting of crimes involving “children” under the age of 18.

At times, it simply makes no sense. And it’s got to change because the safety of Victorians is being put at risk.

Many will have seen the case earlier this week involving three teenagers who police say committed a serious aggravated burglary and were on the run.

ARREST A RELIEF FOR SOME TEENS, CRIME SPECIALIST SAYS

VICTORIAN YOUTH PRISON WORKERS UNDER ATTACK

TEENS LEAD PACK FOR VIOLENT OFFENCES

At the request of the police and with the permission of the president of the Children’s Court, this newspaper published photos of the three on-the-run teenagers. All sounds OK so far, right?

The next day — I bet because of the media coverage — one of the teenagers was caught. An email was sent by police asking the media to remove the images of all the children. That’s right — two were on the run but the media was asked to stop identifying them. Why? Because it might identify the third teenager, who had by that stage been caught so was then technically “before the courts”.

As I type this, one of the teenagers is still at large and you might be walking past this violent offender tonight or tomorrow and not even know.

So you’ll be at risk and you won’t even know to call police to help them make the arrest.

That makes no sense.

If someone under 18 is a serial violent offender, they shouldn’t retain the right to anonymity.

Now I’m not blaming the police here. The president of the Children’s Court revoked the permission given earlier in the week, so the police’s hands are tied just as much as the media’s hands.

I’m also not blaming the president of the Children’s Court. Her Honour is just doing her job. In fact, Her Honour took the fairly unusual step of granting permission in the first place, and in doing so, made Victorians a little safer. That’s to be lauded.

No, the problem here is the law. And it’s got to change.

In Victoria, the default position is that the media is not permitted to identify “children” who have been charged with offences. That prohibition lasts forever. And there’s good reason for it, as a general rule. Imagine your 14-year- old son or daughter got picked up for shoplifting. You wouldn’t want their crime reported and forever hanging over your child even into adulthood. Especially in this modern world where a quick Google search from a prospective employer can end a person’s chances of getting a job.

Kids make mistakes. It’s part of growing up. I know I’ve made my fair share. But people can learn from their mistakes and shouldn’t be held back in life because of those mistakes. The way to do that is to allow anonymity for people who make those mistakes.

But what if the “child” is a serial violent offender? Deciding whether to allow anonymity in this case requires a striking of the balance between community safety and the wellbeing or rights of the “child”. Especially when the “child” is on the run.

In my view, the balance is not right at the moment.

When it comes to the question of whether a child should be granted anonymity, there is no difference in the eyes of the law between a 14-year-old caught shoplifting and a teenager a week short of his 18th birthday and with a long record for violent crimes stabbing someone to death.

Adult serious offenders going to jail for long periods shouldn’t be able to hide their juvenile records.

Again, that makes no sense.

It must change.

When a child is a serial and violent offender, the law should remove anonymity. In the Northern Territory, any children before the courts can be identified.

That is even more important when the offender is on the run. When a child is on the run, the police should be allowed to give the media permission to identify children. The police shouldn’t have to go to the court for permission.

Public safety must be paramount. The police need to move fast when they’re trying to catch criminals and need the media’s help.

Make no mistake — this is not just about the media’s desire to publish interesting stories or to name and shame. One of the police’s most important weapons in fighting crime is the public, and changing the law to better allow the public to help can only be a good thing.

But it shouldn’t just be when someone is on the run.

If someone under 18 is a serial violent offender, they shouldn’t retain the right to anonymity. They’re no longer that 14-year-old shoplifter. That includes where they commit a violent crime as an adult. The media should be able to report their full history. There are murderers well known to the public who will be spending (hopefully) the rest of their lives in jail who have juvenile records being kept secret.

Again, that makes no sense.

Under current laws, if someone under 18 is charged with a crime you can’t report certain things about them, including their religious beliefs, style of dress, recreation interests, school attended or a physical description. None of these things necessarily identify children, but the law deems that it does.

So where — as has happened — a person under 18 is charged with a terrorism-related offence, the media is not permitted to say the person is a Muslim and has been radicalised.

That makes no sense. The law has to change.

Police need the power to permit the media to identify children on the run. Serial violent offenders should lose the right to anonymity.

Adult serious offenders going to jail for long periods shouldn’t be able to hide their juvenile records.

The legislation needs to get rid of deemed identifiers such as a person’s religion. This must change. Now.

Justin Quill is a media lawyer with Macpherson Kelley Lawyers, who act for the Herald Sun

@justinquill