Every media organisation in Australia knows this fundamental rule: when a person under the age of 18 is charged they are entitled to anonymity.

This age old rule is reflected in Victoria by section 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 which says that no person shall publish any particulars of a proceeding before the Children’s Court or any other court for that matter, which is likely to lead to the identification of the child involved in the proceeding. You can apply to get the permission of the President of the Children’s Court to get that ban lifted.

The fine for breaching this provision is $5000 if you are a corporation like a newspaper, or $1000 if you are an individual.

So can we expect the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions or the President of the Victorian Children’s Court, Paul Grant, to be taking action against the Daily Telegraph today for its front page headline and story which names a 16-year-old youth, who is facing a child porn charge and a public nuisance charge?

There might be some jurisdictional arguments here, given that the Daily Telegraph is published in New South Wales, but then any Victorian can read the paper online – and the Tele’s story, as well as the headline, is clearly in breach of section 534.

Of course, the Tele and other media organisations might argue that the young person can lose his or her right to the protections on publication granted to juvenile offenders because of the media circus that he has attracted over the past few days.

But that’s not the point. The law is there for a good reason, as the former US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist said in a famous and often cited 1979 decision. “Publication of the names of juvenile offenders may seriously impair the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and handicap the youths’ prospects for adjustment in society and acceptance by the public.” 

If newspapers and other media outlets are allowed to break the law in this case what’s to stop them from breaching the rights of other young people charged with criminal offences in the future?

And the Victoria Police are not blameless in this saga either. Charging a child with possessing child pornography, when the evidence is simply a bunch of images of naked teenage girls playing Twister at a party, is a potentially a serious waste of taxpayers money and resources. How many 15-year-olds have pictures of their naked 14-year-old girlfriends on their phone or computer? A lot, is the answer.

And speaking of breaching rights, yesterday Crikey accurately predicted that some of those persons who were subjected to the Victoria Police’s over the top capsicum spray exercise at the Australian Open on Monday night would look to sue the cops.

That’s presumably why yesterday afternoon, Australia’s most out of control police force made some of the officers who used the spray on tennis fans front the media. The Victoria Police is worried about liability and wanted to get its story across before the writs start flying.