Identifying Young Victims in the Media in Canada: A Media Scan

Lisa Ha and Anna Ndegwa

The identities of young victims and witnesses can be protected in various ways under existing law. In most cases, the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not allow publication of the identity of young victims/witnesses (s.111). This is an automatic ban; neither the Crown nor any other party needs to apply for it. It is also mandatory, meaning the judge must implement it. A court can only issue an order permitting the publication of the identity of the victim/witness if the young person makes an application requesting it and the court is satisfied that the publication would not be contrary to his or her best interests or the public interest (s.110(6)). Footnote 1 In contrast, under the Criminal Code (s.486.4), only child victims and witnesses of primarily sexual offences allegedly committed by an adult accused benefit from a publication ban to protect their identity. A judge must inform a victim or any witness under the age of 18 years of their right to make an application for an order under s. 486.4(1), and if they apply the judge must make the order. There is, therefore, under the current law a difference in approach governing the application of publication bans involving child victims or witnesses under the Criminal Code and under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Footnote 2

A 2012 Supreme Court of Canada decision involving a young victim of cyberbullying highlighted the need to protect the privacy of young persons as these cases are brought through the justice system. In doing so, the Court referred to important privacy protections for young persons in the context of criminal justice proceedings and emphasized that these protections are based solely on their age. The Court in AB v. Bragg Communications, 2012 SCC 46, stated:

Recognition of the inherent vulnerability of children has consistent and deep roots in Canadian law. This results in protection for young people’s privacy under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (s. 486), the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (s. 110), and child welfare legislation, not to mention international protections such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, all based on age, not the sensitivity of the particular child. As a result, in an application involving sexualized cyberbullying, there is no need for a particular child to demonstrate that she personally conforms to this legal paradigm. The law attributes the heightened vulnerability based on chronology, not temperament: See R. v. D.B., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 41, 61 and 84-87; R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, at paras. 170-74. [Emphasis in bold added.]

The statements in the decision apply to all young persons, whether they are accused, victims or witnesses. Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, introduces amendments to s.486.4 of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments would make a publication ban mandatory upon application for all victims under the age of 18 years in respect of offences not already covered by the current provision. These changes would enhance the protections afforded to child victims in particular under the Criminal Code. It is within this context that this small study was undertaken.

In a 2010 study (Jones et al. 2010), researchers examined the nature and extent to which identifying information was being published in child victimization cases in the United States. The authors highlighted the impact that media identification of young victims can have, suggesting it can “exacerbate trauma, complicate recovery, discourage future disclosures and inhibit cooperation with police” (2010, 347). The study found that just over 50% of media articles examined included identifying information (2010, 353).

The purpose of this study is to look at media coverage of cases of violent victimization of children in Canada and to determine, using similar methodology to Jones et al. (2010), the extent to which Canadian media sources publish identifying information on child victimization cases. The focus is on the characteristics of cases of child victimization reported by the media (e.g. type of victimization, demographics), how often the coverage included identifying information about the victim, whether there was an indication of a publication ban in place, and the type of identifying information reported.

Methodology

Two databases were used to retrieve media articles: the Government of Canada news database, “NewsDesk,” and one from a media-monitoring company, Gnowit.com. The focus was on Canadian newspaper articles and media sources reporting on cases of child victimization within a period of roughly six years, from January 1, 2008, to October 31, 2013. The following search terms were used: “child* and (neglect or violence or sexual offence or victim or crime or abuse or assault or rape or crimes against persons or child victim).” Articles were excluded if there was no clearly reported offence against a child (e.g. if a child victim was not indicated). A total of 60 articles were found through the initial search. A further 30 articles were added based on the added search term of “pornography.”

Articles were excluded if the case involved child fatalities. Jones et al. (2010) found that media coverage involving child fatalities is more likely to include information that can be used to identify the victims (i.e., the victim or relative’s actual names). The analyses presented below were conducted on a final sample of 90 articles covering non-fatal child victimization in Canada between 2008 and 2013.

For each newspaper article and news media source, characteristics about the incident and information about both the accused and victim were collected and documented. Also noted was whether the article reported identifying information about the victim as well as whether it clearly stated there was a publication ban in place. “Identifying information” was defined as those pieces of information that could potentially reveal a child victim to their social group. Identifiers include the victim’s name; the street name or full address of the victim; the name of the victim’s school, daycare, or church; the name of non-offending relatives; and the name of an offending family member. Information was also collected on the length of time between the victimization and the publication of the article.

Findings

Of the 90 articles reviewed, almost a quarter (23%) contained identifying information (Table 1). The identifying information reported most often was the name of the child’s school, church or day care (33%), the child’s street or address (29%), and the full name of non-offending relatives (24%). The full name of the victim was included in 4 out of the 21 articles that contained identifying information (23%). More than half of the articles did not mention whether a publication ban was in place (57%); however, 41% of the articles did specify that there was a publication ban. Seven of the articles indicating that a publication ban was in place contained identifying information, including the home address of the victim or the accused (full or partial), name/address of daycare, and partial name of victim (e.g. “baby Alison”). Slightly more than half of the articles (52%) were published within a year of the victimization.

Table 1. Identifying information in Canadian media articles on child victimization cases (2008-2013, 90 articles)

Identifying Information

% (n)

No

77(69)

Yes

23 (21)

Type of Identifying Information

% (n)

Name of church, school, daycare etc.

33 (7)

Street/address

29 (6)

Full name of non-offending relatives

24 (5)

Full name of victim

19 (4)

Full name of offending family member

10 (2)

Other

10 (2)

Publication Ban

% (n)

Unspecified

57 (51)

Yes

41 (37)

No

2 (2)

Time between victimization and article

% (n)

0 – 1 years

52 (47)

2 – 5 years

32 (29)

6 – 10 years

6 (5)

10+ years

7 (6)

Unspecified

3 (3)

Source: (Canadian media articles from Government of Canada Newsdesk and Gnowit.com)

Table 2 presents the victim and accused characteristics in cases of child victimization reported in the media. Victims were more often female than male (61% versus 41%). Footnote 3 In terms of age, slightly more than half of victims were under the age of 12 (53%). A large proportion of accused were male (89%). Slightly more than half of accused were 41 years old or older (51%), while 29% were between the ages of 26 and 40 years of age. The majority of cases involved accused who were either a non-family member known to the victim (47%) or a parent of the victim (20%).

Table 2. Victim and accused characteristics in Canadian media articles on child victimization cases (2008-2013, 90 articles)

Victim sex

% (n)

Female

61 (55)

Male

41 (37)

Unspecified

7  (6)

Victim age at time of incident

% (n)

Child (12 years old and under)

53 (49)

Adolescent (13-17 years old)

34 (32)

Unspecified

13 (12)

Accused sex

% (n)

Male

89 (80)

Female

14 (13)

Unspecified

1   (1)

Accused age at time of incident

% (n)

41+ years

51 (46)

26-40 years

29 (26)

Unspecified

16 (14)

18-25 years

6   (5)

1-17 years

4   (4)

Accused – victim relationship

% (n)

Known to victim

47 (42)

Parent

20 (18)

Unknown to victim

18 (16)

Unspecified

12 (11)

Family member

7 (6)

Source: (Canadian media articles from Government of Canada Newsdesk and Gnowit.com)

Table 3 presents the characteristics of the child victimization cases reported in the media. The majority of articles reported on cases of child sexual abuse (71%), while the others reported on physical abuse (17%) and other types of abuse, including neglect (12%). In a majority of the cases the accused were charged with making, possessing, or distributing child pornography (42%); 38% were charged with sexual assault; 23% were charged with sexual interference; 21% were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life or mistreatment; and 18% of accused were charged with sexual touching involving a young person, a person under the age of 14 or 16. Slightly more than half of cases involved only one victim (51%), and nearly half (48%) of cases involved multiple victims. Child pornography, videotapes or photographs were factors in the victimization in 37% of cases, while 23% of the cases involved an international connection (e.g. a Canadian victimized abroad), 17% of cases involved a high-profile community member (e.g. pastor, RCMP officer), and 14% involved the Internet.

Table 3. Case characteristics in Canadian media articles on child victimization cases (2008-2013, n=90)

Victimization type

%  (n)

Sexual abuse

71 (64)

Physical abuse

17 (15)

Other (neglect)

12 (11)

Type of Offence: Charges laid

%  (n)

Making, possessing or distributing child pornography

42 (38)

Sexual assault

38 (34)

Sexual interference

23 (21)

Failing to provide necessaries of life/Mistreatment

21 (19)

Sexual touching involving a young person (under 14, under 16)

18 (16)

Assault (aggravated, with weapon)

16 (14)

Luring

12 (11)

Sexual exploitation

8 (7)

Molestation/Incest

7 (6)

Unspecified

7 (6)

Abduction

4 (4)

Number of Victim(s)

%  (n)

1 victim

51 (46)

2+ victims

48 (44)

Number of accused

%  (n)

1 accused

91 (82)

2+ accused

9 (8)

 Time between victimization and article

%  (n)

0 – 1 years

52 (47)

2 – 5 years

32 (29)

6 – 10 years

6 (5)

10+ years

7 (6)

Unspecified

3 (3)

Victimization Characteristics

%  (n)

Photographs, pornography, videotape

37 (33)

International connection

23 (21)

High-profile community member

17 (15)

Internet-related

14 (13)

Abductions

6 (5)

Romantic relationship

2 (2)

Source: Canadian media articles from Government of Canada Newsdesk and Gnowit.com

Conclusion

Looking at the content of media coverage of young persons who are victims and/or witnesses in the criminal justice system is a straightforward method to understand how publication bans are working. The context for this study is also important and will likely draw greater attention to the privacy protections of young persons in the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in AB v. Bragg Communications affirmed the inherent vulnerabilities of young persons by way of their chronological age alone. In line with this decision, the proposed changes to the Criminal Code under Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, will enhance protections for victims under the age of 18 years in the criminal justice system. While the findings of this study show that the identities of young victims/witnesses are being protected to a greater extent in Canada than what may be seen in the United States (based on the results of the Jones et al. study), it remains important for the courts and media organizations to be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of children.

References

Jones, Lisa M., David Finkelhor, and Jessica Beckwith. 2010. Protecting victims’ identities in press coverage of child victimization. Journalism 11(3): 347-367.

Lisa Ha is a senior researcher with the Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, in Ottawa.