Court-ordered anonymity of the infant victims and its second-order effects
Prosecution claim
The court-ordered anonymity of the infant victims (identified at trial only as Child A, Child B, Child C, etc.) is a standard protective measure in cases involving minors. It is not, on the Crown's framing, a feature of the record that has second-order effects.
Counter-evidence
The anonymisation is legally correct and proper. It is not itself a criticism of the court. But it does have second-order consequences for what the public can weigh. The public cannot, for example, independently verify specific antenatal records, family histories, or obstetric referral pathways. Independent journalists cannot cross-check specific claims about specific babies against family accounts. The public-interest dimension of the case is therefore filtered through what the Crown or the defence chose to adduce at trial. Post-conviction, the anonymisation persists, which means the Panel, the CCRC, the Court of Appeal, and independent expert reviewers are the only parties able to review the full clinical record. Public understanding is constrained to what those institutional reviewers report. That is not itself a criticism of the anonymisation; it is a feature of the record that matters for how public discourse about the case can operate.
Anonymisation serves a legitimate protective purpose. It also means the public's understanding of the cases is filtered through institutional reviewers. That filter is not neutral; it shapes what the public can weigh independently.
What the jury heard
Not applicable — the jury addressed the counts within the anonymisation framework. The second-order effects are on public understanding after verdict.
What the Panel says
The Panel's review is conducted under the anonymisation framework. Its case-by-case conclusions are the principal publicly-available professional reading of the clinical records.
What independent experts add
- Anonymisation of infant victims in criminal proceedings is a standard and appropriate protective measure.
- The anonymisation is not a ground for objection.
- But it has second-order effects on public understanding that are worth noticing.
- Public discourse about the case is largely filtered through: Crown framing at trial, media reporting, and independent institutional reviewers.
- Independent experts who have reviewed the full (anonymised) record can and do speak to it.
- Family accounts that have since become public (including from Baby E's mother) add specific case-level information without breaching the anonymisation.
- The October 2025 CCRC application operates under the anonymisation framework and is the authoritative public account of the evidence against the convictions.