A woman is beaten to death after being tortured by two teenage girls. That woman is Angela Wrightson (39) an alcoholic from Hartlepool. Her death and the subsequent trial of her two young murderers made national headlines.

So why is it that a few months later officials investigating her death refuse to name her? Not only that – in a news conference to present the results of their findings they call her ‘Carol’ to “anonymise” her.

Angela Wrightson.
Apparently they changed the murder victim’s name on advice from lawyers. But why?
Let’s be clear – there is no legal reason why we should NOT call Angela by her real name. The legal advice, journalists were told, was offered on the grounds that anyone searching her name on Google might indirectly be able to indentify Angela’s young attackers. I tried. You can’t. Incidentally a search using the words “Hartlepool” “alcoholic” “murder” and “teenagers” instantly brings up news articles which quite properly identify the victim as Angela Wrightson. She may have been a desperately sad alcoholic but she was also a real woman with a real name.

Ironic

Given that the senior civil servants who investigated Angela’s shocking death were themselves critical of the lack of information sharing between the various agencies involved in her care – is it not ironic that they should try to draw a veil over the victim’s identity?
The identity of child criminals is usually, and most of the time quite properly, hidden. But an adult victim?
The effect of the secrecy flies in the face of the idea that publicly funded authorities should be open and transparent. It also dehumanises the innocent victim who may as well have been called victim A.

For secrecy’s sake

Legal advice is just that…advice. It’s a shame that senior professionals in situations such as this often use legal advice to excuse what in Britain regularly amounts to secrecy for secrecy’s sake.