The Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) has heard how identifying children who are victims‚ witnesses and perpetrators of crime was shaming‚ traumatic and detrimental to their rehabilitation, notes a TimesLIVE report. The focal point is section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act which prohibits the publication of anything leading to the identification of witnesses and offenders under 18. At issue is whether the interpretation of this section by the media – that the identification protection of such children expired when they turned 18 – was consistent with the constitutional right to privacy.

Children rights lobby groups Centre for Child Law‚ Childline‚ Nicro and Media Monitoring Africa approached the court to rule that the current law infringes the relevant constitutional rights to privacy.

Yesterday‚ Advocate Steven Budlender SC‚ for the lobby groups‚ argued that children who were victims and witnesses of crime suffered significant trauma following the crime. He said it was in the children's best interest of recovery‚ and in some cases rehabilitation‚ for their rights to privacy and dignity to be respected and protected. He made mention of a minor‚ 15 at the time‚ who was tried for the murder of AWB leader Eugene Terreblanche in 2010. Budlender said that once he turned 18‚ his name was revealed and his picture splashed in newspapers. ‘He was acquitted… that makes matters even worse. It is not hard to imagine anything more adverse‚’ he said.

Media houses argue that freedom of expression outweighs the rights of children‚ and that victims should not be included under the protective clause unless they are called as witnesses. The media groups – Media 24‚ Independent Media and the Times Media Group – also argue that the anonymity protection for all categories should end at 18 years of age, notes the TimesLIVE report.

Budlender suggested a number of options to untangle the legal dilemma in the interpretation of the law. He said one option was for the court to interpret the provision constitutionally – to uphold the children’s right to have their best interests considered paramount and to have their dignity and privacy protected and respected. Budlender said if the provision was not flexible enough to be interpreted in line with the Constitution‚ then the court will be asked to strike the provision down and to send the matter back to the legislature to consider the matter afresh.

Full TimesLIVE report

A blanket ban on the identification of child victims and offenders in the media would be unrealistic and interfere with freedom of expression, Wim Trengove SC, representing the media houses said, according to a News24 report. He argued that the Child Justice Act already protected children and that such a ban did not exist anywhere in the world. Trengove, arguing against the ban, said the media had agreed that all children should be protected. Identifying child victims or offenders should, however, be done on a case-by-case basis. A proposed blanket ban on identifying child victims would mean that whenever a robbery or kidnapping occurred, the names of those involved could not be made public. Similarly, it would be hard for newspapers to name the victims of accidents or hijackings, he said.

Full News24 report