Judge on why youths who killed Brianna Ghey will be named and why wait

It was revealed earlier today, Thursday, that both defendants convicted of the Birchwood schoolgirl’s killing can be named ONLY from a certain point during their sentencing hearing on February 2.

Two 16-year-olds, aged 15 at the time of the killing, were convicted of Brianna’s murder by unanimous verdict at Manchester Crown Court yesterday, Wednesday, following a four-week trial, and four hours and 40 minutes of jury deliberations.

Throughout coverage of the trial, they were referred to in coverage only as girl X, from Warrington, and boy Y, from Leigh.

They were both – and still are – protected by reporting restrictions preventing them from being named from the time they were arrested and charged.

Justice Amanda Yip confirmed, in a written ruling read out in court, that reporting restrictions preventing the two defendants from being named will be lifted during their sentencing hearing, following applications by members of the press and media.

This will be at a certain point when she directs they will be named, and NOT before this point.

The ruling highlights that professionals working with X and Y urge against lifting the reporting restrictions, citing concerns over mental health, rehabilitation, challenges in custody due to neurological condition diagnoses and risk to both the defendants and their families.

One expert also expressed concern for mental health in the event that they become “notorious and the focus of heightened attention”.

The court heard Brianna’s family were “supportive of restrictions being lifted”, with defence counsel for both defendants making submissions in opposition to their clients being named.

Reporting restrictions may be lifted if it is “in the public interest”, and with a “strong presumption in favour of open justice”, the court heard the “onus is on the defence to justify reporting restrictions”.

Justice Yip considered that both defendants could be named in any event when restrictions expire when they turn 18 in 2025.

Two youths have been convicted of murdering Brianna Ghey (Image: Cheshire Police)

The ruling also highlights distress to families, which you can read more about here.

It goes on to say: “The shock generated by Brianna’s murder and the circumstances of it has spread well beyond the local community, across the nation and indeed internationally.

“The public will naturally wish to know the identities of the young people responsible as they seek to understand how children could do something so dreadful.

“Continuing restrictions inhibits full and informed debate and restricts the full reporting of the case.”

Justice Yip continued: “In the particular circumstances of this case, it seems to me that it is inevitable that the defendants’ identities will become widely known and reported at some stage.

“The question for me is whether I should lift the reporting restrictions now or allow them to continue until they lapse by operation of law during 2025.

“Having considered all the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that there is a good reason to maintain reporting restrictions following the defendants’ conviction and sentence.

“I consider that, there is a strong public interest in full and unrestricted reporting of what is plainly an exceptional case, at the time the proceedings are being concluded.

“Continuing the reporting restrictions until the defendants turn 18 would, in my view, represent a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the freedom of the press.

“I do, however, recognise that there may be a need for some work to be done with the defendants and their families to prepare them for the consequences of the reporting that is likely to follow the lifting of restrictions.

“I consider that the welfare of the defendants is likely to be detrimentally affected if appropriate support is not put in place for them and for their families around the time that they are identified. 

“Balanced against that, while the interest in reporting the defendants’ identities is strong now immediately following conviction, it will remain so at the date of sentence. 

“The stay will allow time for the professionals responsible for the defendants to prepare them for the consequences of identification and to address the concerns identified in the material before me.”