QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
(Sir John Thomas)
MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
|HM ATTORNEY GENERAL||Applicant|
|HM ATTORNEY GENERAL||Applicant|
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss Melanie Cumberland (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Applicant (Nos ATC/13/0202, ATC/13/0203)
Mr Paul Cross (instructed by McKenzie Bell) appeared on behalf of
the Respondent Harkins
Mr Tehrani (instructed by Lancasters) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Liddle
Crown Copyright ©
"From all the evidence provided to me, I have come to the clear conclusion that if the new identity of these claimants became public knowledge it would have disastrous consequences for Venables and Thompson, not only from intrusion and harassment but, far more important, the real possibility of serious physical harm and possible death from vengeful members of the public. If their new identities were discovered, I am satisfied that neither of them would have any chance of a normal life and that there is a real and strong possibility that their lives would be at risk."
A. Neil Harkins
"Interesting that this photograph is not allowed to be shown and there is an investigation on how it got out. What is more interesting is why he got released and protected in the first place."
Although he only had one-hundred-and-forty-one friends, it is plain from the evidence that the placing of this on to Facebook resulted in over 20,000 sharings with other people. It is impossible to say how many people saw it, but it is obviously a very significant number.
"Can't imagine what the poor kid went through. What is wrong is the fact he got released and then got done for downloading child pornography and yet he is still protected. What is wrong with the system?"
"The article showed the images that I posted which I know are some of many which are widely accessible on the internet. I believed at the time that the images I posted were not within any legal constraints as they were freely accessible on the internet. I was also under the impression that the legal restrictions applied to images published in the media. However having received a copy of the injunction which you enclosed, I realise that is not the case."
He set out his personal circumstances.
B. Dean Liddle
"I heard about it [the injunction] for a while, but posted it as people are talking about being prosecuted for putting it and I don't think it's right."
"So I get a huge fine. Great. They will get £2 a week off me and the evil men who murdered a child will be known publicly - #worthit."
"Just been served with court papers for posting picture of sick child killers Venables and Thompson. What a joke."
"Love them to take me to court. I'll tell them exactly why I posted pictures of sick child killers."
"I would like to offer, firstly, my sincerest apology. It was a mistake on my part and one which I vow never to commit again. I must also add however when I posted these photographs on Twitter I had already noticed the exact photo hundreds of times that day on Twitter so was thinking it was still something which was already out in the public, visible to all. Still, I was aware there was a ruling for there not to be printed or posted on line but still did so. My biggest error was in not fully understanding the implication of what an injunction was, what it covered and what breaking the injunction actually meant. I don't want to play dumb here, but I genuinely did not fully understand how serious this situation was. I am now fully aware of the injunctions and why they need to be upheld."
21. The sentence for contempt