Case over identity of crime victims
Law should protect youngsters from identification beyond age of 18
LEGAL arguments are expected to continue today at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria where the Centre for Child Law is arguing its case on the protection of the identity of children who are witnesses in criminal matters.
The case comes on the heels of the Zephany Nurse trial in which the centre launched an urgent court interdict to prevent the publication of her real name once she turned 18 years old.
According to the centre, the media started interpreting the protection offered by the law as ending when the child turns 18 years old.
When Nurse was 17 years old, the news of her kidnapping and discovery by her biological parents broke, and due to the Criminal Procedure Act, it prevented her identity from being revealed.
However, due to legal understanding surrounding the Criminal Procedure Act, it was interpreted that as soon as Zephany turns 18, her name could be revealed.
The trial has now become part of a bigger case by the centre along with Childline and the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (Nicro) arguing that the law should also protect child victims from identification beyond the age of 18, and that only a court should be able to decide on whether information that reveals identity may be published.
Professor Ann Skelton, Director of the Centre for Child Law at the University of Pretoria, is aware that it is a delicate situation to navigate.
“It is a balancing between freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and open justice on the one hand. Children’s rights, privacy, dignity, and basically the right to live a normal life on the other side,” she said.
“It is a balancing of rights, and it’s where to find that balance. This is why it is such an interesting case because there are two ways of looking at it.
“I’m on the side saying that children need protection and that if we’re going to be successful, if you start in childhood, you need that protection ongoing - cause what would be the point to do that protection then suddenly when you turn 18 you no longer have a private life?
“The law is not clear about victims, it talks about witnesses but even under 18 it is not clear whether or not a child victim should be protected.”
The media arguing against the centre, among them the South African National Editors’ Forum, Primedia and e.tv, argue that ruling against identifying child victims after they turn 18 would unjustifiably limit the rights of freedom of expression.The media are further arguing that having a free media is a vital part of a democracy and any attempts at curtailing this right should be only made in exceptional circumstances and on a case by case basis. They believe that blanket protection will go too far in limiting the necessary details of a story.
They will seek to argue that should the age of protection be extended, it should last until 21 years of age.
“Our concern is that these are very vulnerable people and it is hard enough already dealing with whatever happened to you as a victim – like being kidnapped, and on top of that then have to deal with being really bare in the media,” Skelton said.
South African National Editors’ Forum chairperson Mahlatse Gallens confirmed that the committee is following the case as it has an impact on the media.
“We are watching the court deliberations quite closely.”
BEING KIDNAPPED, AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH BEING REALLY BARE IN THE MEDIA