Law that dishonours memory of murdered children must be changed immediately

FEW crimes are as repugnant at the killing of a child, with one exception – the killing of a child by a parent. Last October, one such case came before the courts, and the woman in question was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity. That is an incredibly sad situation that surely warrants the sympathy and empathy of all in our society, but it has led to repercussions that perhaps had not been envisaged.

Before the trial began, two High Court judges ruled that the woman could not be named. Section 252 of the Children Act 2001 makes it an offence to publish anything that could identify a child who is an alleged victim of an offence, even a child now deceased. If the mother had been named, the identity of the child would have been clear.

This week, following a challenge to this ruling by various media outlets, the Court of Appeal rejected it, saying that while this was a ‘radical departure from what had been a longestablished practice’, the language in the statute was ‘clear and unequivocal’.

Those of us who work in newspapers know that the vast majority of parents who have lost a child through violence, by a stranger or a family member, want that child’s life to count for something. Summoning reserves of bravery that often seem unfathomable, they address the assembled media afterwards to thank the jury, condemn the killer, and above all to tell the world how beautiful, clever and loving their boy or girl was, and how this great loss can never be atoned for.

Those who have found themselves in this tragic situation already see the problems that arise. This week, it led to a ludicrous situation when a woman whose two children were murdered spoke to Philip BoucherHayes on RTÉ and could not be identified, or even utter her own murdered children’s names.

For now, she and others like her may be referred to only as ‘the parent of a murdered child’. If the intent of the legislation was to confer some dignity in death, it is clear too that stripping a Patrick or a Mary of his or her actual name, and instead referring to them only as ‘murdered children’ has a cruelly opposite effect. It reduces the totality of their lives to the evil acts that ended them.

We understand where the judges were coming from, and they felt there was no other reasonable interpretation of the law. As Mr Justice Birmingham said: ‘While the outcome may not be a particularly welcome one, I am of the view that the interpretation of the section in issue by the High Court judge was correct.’

It now falls to the Oireachtas to address this anomaly. Justice Minister Helen McEntee and Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman must move with urgency to change the law to apply only to living child victims of crime.

Yes, there is an element of press freedom to this and public interest too. We cannot even mention previous family killings because we will be identifying the deceased child victims.

Mostly, though, the point is that grieving surviving parents cannot identify themselves or their own children for fear of breaking the law. This is bizarre and wrong.

The law must be changed immediately.