Before then neither police nor probation services were obliged to maintain contact with relations post-sentencing

Before then, neither police nor probation services were obliged to maintain contact with relations post-sentencing.Following conviction the Josephs say they received no news of their daughter's murderer, now a man of 26 He could be in the next street The family cannot bear to refer to him by name. They have "no reason to meet this person at all" but want to know his whereabouts. Mr Joseph says probation services made no attempt to contact them and "only recently were we made aware of our rights". Because of reporting restrictions they assumed they were not entitled to any information.There is an automatic ban on reporting identities in youth courts. Murder cases, however, are tried in adult courts where the judge decides whether to restrict publicity under S39 Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The court can ban publication of pictures or of information that could lead to children being identified.Reporting restrictions can be lifted on conviction. Sometimes this is thought to encourage offenders to face up to the consequences of their crime.

Mr Joseph re- members that the judge at Chelmsford Crown Court exercised this discretion at the end of the trial. However, after the furore surrounding the Bulger case, an injunction was imposed preventing details of the offender's name or whereabouts being revealed This remains in place. The family is contemplating a legal challenge so that families living close to the killer can be told who he is. They will be making their views known to the Home Office.Renewed interest in Sharona's case because of Thompson and Venables' imminent release prompted the Josephs to contact Hertfordshire Probation Services on 29 June.

Mr Joseph says he asked them if they would have contacted them and was told that they were intending to get around to this After 13 years, one would hope so The Home Office declines to comment on specific files. However, it confirms that in older cases it tries to make contact but it is "a question of resources".The Josephs appear to have been neglected because of the arbitrary fact that their child died before more victim-friendly rules were introduced. In 1990, Michael Howard, then Home Secretary, published a Victim's Charter, which was revised in 1996. This set out for the first time the "service victims of crime should expect". A key feature was providing victims with important information, including release dates.From 1996, probation officers are supposed to "get in touch with you to find out whether you want to be told when the prisoner may be released" Enquiries are made two months after sentencing Concerns can lead to conditions being attached. Belatedly, the Josephs have been assured their "views will be sought and taken into account".The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2000 came into effect this year It is not retrospective. Section 69 imposes a statutory duty on the probation board to consult with victims, including relations, before release.

They must be allowed to make representations and to be informed of conditions. In cases falling outside the Act, the onus can fall on victims to find out what is happening. As Sharona's case demonstrates, people do not necessarily know who to contact. Nowadays, contact details are given early on by specially trained police family liaison officers. In response to the 1996 Charter, information packs contain details of bodies such as Support after Murder and Manslaughter, a self-help group funded by £120,000 from the Home Office and Victim Support. The latter is a national organisation, also Home Office funded, that provides help and emotional support to people in the aftermath of crime.Mr Joseph acknowledges the role of Victim Support, but says they lack "strong enough powers".