Carr injunction 'extraordinary': Lawyer

An injunction banning the release of details of Maxine Carr’s new identity is one of the most robust yet seen, a leading lawyer has said.

Twenty-seven-year-old Carr is being released today. She has spent half of a 42-month sentence behind bars after being convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

She provided a false alibi for her then boyfriend Ian Huntley by lying to police about her whereabouts on the weekend in August 2002 when he murdered 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire.

Today Carr was being passed from her Prison Service keepers in to the hands of the National Probation Service who will supervise her on licence.

Blanket measures prohibiting information on every aspect of Carr’s whereabouts, appearance and movements are “extraordinary”, media lawyer Mark Stephens said.

He said he expected Carr to be protected by the High Court for the foreseeable future but stressed the order was only an interim measure and could still be toned down.

Mr Justice Eady granted the injunction yesterday, at the request of Carr’s lawyers, “until further notice”.

It bans the publication of any new name for Carr, address, any care or treatment she may be receiving and any “depiction, painting, drawing, photograph or film” of her made or taken after her release tomorrow.

Any premises she may visit in her new life, which would include shops or parks etc, cannot be identified either.

Journalists, or others, are not allowed to “solicit” people for such information.

And internet service providers must take all “reasonable steps” to prevent publication on its servers.

Mr Stephens, of London-based Finers Stephens Innocent, said: “It is a quite extraordinary form of protection where the court has been convinced there are real, credible threats to Maxine Carr.

“She is a woman at risk, serious risk of bodily harm. If that can be said, they prioritise the right to prevent physical harm over the right to free speech.

“It is quite an exceptional order. The courts are most reluctant to make these orders. It had to be convinced there was no other imaginable way of protecting Maxine Carr.”

The lawyer said it was as strong, if not stronger, as similar injunctions banning the identity of the James Bulger killers, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, and child killer Mary Bell.

“It is a robust order, possibly the most robust order that we have seen,” he added.

“One has to look at the history of these orders. In those cases, where there is a person at risk of serious personal harm, and those risks are real and credible, in those circumstances it is appropriate to control free expression to protect life and limb where reasonably expected.

“Look at some of the media coverage of recent days. There has been an awful lot of pictures of her (Carr) looking smug. There are very strong feelings about this case.

“One understands why the court would err on the side of caution during this hiatus and have her identity protected.”

Mr Stephens said the reference to “care and treatment” and “depiction” could suggest Carr has changed her appearance.

He said a clause banning any publication here of information posted on a foreign website was unique in his experience.

He added: “This is an interim order, not a final order and it is now up to the newspaper groups to go to court and apply to have the order lifted or varied that does not control free speech but still protects life and limb.”