The purpose of this article is to formulate an appropriate response to the issue of child identification in criminal contexts, in light of the dialogue that is taking place regarding the adoption of a nationally consistent approach. In the first part of this article, I explore the policy considerations for and against identifying child victims and offenders, and conclude that the arguments in favour of suppressing a child’s identity generally outweigh the arguments in favour of publishing a child’s identity. In the second part of the article, I critically examine the options for a national standard.I do so by critiquing the approaches currently taken in the Northern Territory, Victoria and New South Wales, being representative of the most disparate range of alternatives.SSRN has also released Moira Paterson's 2010 'Freedom of Information: Taking Account of the Circumstances of Individual Applicants' -
An important feature of Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation is that it provides universal rights of access. Individuals are able to request access to documents as of right and cannot be required to justify or provide reasons for seeking access to documents and they are not subject to any restrictions on what they can do with any documents provided to them. It follows therefore that it is generally inappropriate to consider an applicant’s identity or motives in making access decisions. However, there are a number of circumstances where an applicant’s identity or motives should logically make a difference as to whether they should be granted access. This article is concerned with the extent to which the circumstances of individual applicants can and should be taken into account in the operation of the UK FOI legislation, and draws on Australian case law to suggest a possible alternative to the current approach taken in the United Kingdom.