NI TalkTalk hacker ‘suffered no discrimination’ after he was identified
A Co Antrim teenager who was part of the high-profile hacking of telecom giant TalkTalk suffered no discrimination by his initial media identification, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Colton rejected claims that an unlawful distinction was made between his circumstances and other juvenile crime suspects automatically entitled to anonymity once they are charged.
He said: “There is nothing unfair or irrational in the State’s approach.”
Now aged 20, the plaintiff is still referred to only as JKL in a case examining the right of the press to name young people under police investigation.
He was 15 when police arrested him in October 2015 over a major hack into the phone and broadband provider’s database.
Detectives interviewed him as a cyber-crime suspect before he was released on bail without charge at that stage.
Under the terms of the 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act no-one under 18 allegedly involved in an offence can be named in press reports.
Although that law applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, lawyers for the teenager claimed Stormont’s continued failure to commence the act breached his human rights.
They argue it was irrational to be denied the same protection given to minors once they are charged with an offence.
The legal loophole enabled his details and photograph to feature amid widespread newspaper and online publicity, according to their case.
Ultimately JKL pleaded guilty to unauthorised access to computer material.
His legal challenge focused on the legislative protection from press identification for youths before they have been charged.
In 2016 the High Court dismissed an initial bid to have the Department of Justice compelled to implement a law banning the naming of juvenile crime suspects before charge.
Senior judges then referred the case back to the High Court to determine if he has suffered any discrimination.
At a new hearing JKL’s lawyers argued that the current legislative situation contravenes his rights under European law.
Ronan Lavery QC contended that it is unlawful to discriminate between categories of children, and that the difference in treatment cannot be justified.
Mr Lavery insisted that his client had received less protection despite being deemed less culpable while charged with no offence.
But with no concerns raised over previous cases, Mr Justice Colton said: “There is no evidential basis to demonstrate that the scheme operates in a discriminatory manner.”
JKL is not in an analogous situation to children who appear before a court, he said.