\n<\/p>\n
The guilty verdicts in the trial of two 12-year-olds for killing Shawn Seesahai<\/a> in Wolverhampton, puts them among the UK\u2019s youngest convicted murderers, and leaves the judge with key decisions to make.<\/p>\n Before deciding the minimum sentence to impose on the boys, Mrs Justice Tipples will have to decide whether they should be named.<\/p>\n The defendants are believed to be the youngest convicted murderers since Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, both 11 when they were found guilty in 1993 of killing two-year-old James Bulger<\/a>. On that occasion, amid widespread revulsion at their actions, the judge took the decision to end their anonymity and their photographs became indelibly etched in the public\u2019s consciousness.<\/p>\n Judges in England and Wales routinely use their discretionary powers under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (YJCEA)<\/a> to prevent under-18s tried in adult courts from being named until adulthood.<\/p>\n However, in exceptional instances, such as the Bulger case, orders are removed at the end of the trial, usually after a media application. Whatever the stage of proceedings, the YJCEA says the public interest in naming a child defendant should be weighed against their welfare.<\/p>\n Kym Darby, chair of the James Bulger Foundation, said James\u2019s mother, Denise Fergus, had been \u201cknocked for six\u201d by the Wolverhampton<\/a> case, adding: \u201cI know that she would want them to be named.\u201d She said Fergus believed the names of children convicted of murder should \u201cbe everywhere for what they have done\u201d.<\/p>\n However, Dr Kathy Hampson, a senior lecturer in criminology at Aberystwyth University, said that naming child killers forever associated them and their photographs with their victims \u2013 Brianna Ghey\u2019s father did not want her murderers named for that reason<\/a> \u2013 and could dominate media coverage.<\/p>\n