Legal bid to name boys, 12, guilty of machete murder

Shawn Seesahai, 19, died after being stabbed in an unprovoked attack in Wolverhampton last year

A judge has been asked to consider lifting a ban on identifying two 12-year-old boys who were convicted of murdering a teenager with a machete.

The youths were found guilty in June of murdering 19-year-old Shawn Seesahai, who was stabbed in the heart in an unprovoked attack in Wolverhampton last year.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Tipples said she would issue a ruling on Wednesday on whether the defendants, one now aged 13, should lose anonymity granted by an order under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act.

The boys are to be sentenced in September over the attack on Stowlawn playing fields.

They are believed to be the youngest defendants convicted of murder in Britain since Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both 11, were found guilty in 1993 of killing two-year-old James Bulger.

'Substantial public interest'

At a hearing at Nottingham Crown Court on Monday, Jude Bunting KC represented three media organisations that have applied for the ban on identifying the boys to be lifted.

"We are in the realm of knife crime, which is an issue of substantial public interest," Mr Bunting told the judge.

He also said naming the boys would enable the media to investigate the possibility of institutional failures.

Defence counsel Rachel Brand KC and Paul Lewis KC both opposed the application.

Ms Brand, who was offering submissions on behalf of one the boys, said that factors including his welfare, vulnerability and complex needs should be given a "heavier consideration" than public interest.

She added there was “absolutely no evidence that naming actually has a deterrent effect".

Mr Lewis, who was representing the boy who has turned 13 since his conviction, argued naming the boys would not better inform public debate and the focus should be on chances for rehabilitation.

Mrs Justice Tipples made clear her ruling on Wednesday was likely to be the subject of a "stay" until sentencing on 26 and 27 September, meaning that it would not take effect before then.

The "stay" would allow lawyers to challenge the ruling in a higher court, the court heard.