James Bulger: 2 Facebook and Twitter users walk free from court after sharing photos of his 'killers as adults' Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins given nine-month suspended jail sentences Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who killed toddler James Bulger in 1993, have new names and identities The murderers' are protected by an injunction forbidding anyone from revealing their new names or current pictures of them Attorney General Dominic Grieve took action because he said breaching the injunction would dangerous for those identified, rightly or wrongly Two users of social media who breached an injunction banning the revelation of the new identities of James Bulger's killers received suspended jail sentences today. Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins escaped prison after they put photographs on Twitter and Facebook respectively purportedly depicting Jon Venables and Robert Thompson as adults. They were each sentenced for posting the pictures this February, two days after the 20th anniversary of the toddler's murder, to nine-month sentences suspended for 15 months, following contempt proceedings brought by Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC. James Bulger killers Jon Venables, left, and Robert Thompson, right: Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins breached an injunction banning the revelation of their new identities Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Tugendhat said that Liddle, of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and Harkins, of Bridlington, East Yorkshire, knew what they were doing was wrong and it was no excuse that others were doing it. The pair admitted breaching a January 2001 injunction, binding on the whole world, imposed before Venables and Thompson were released, which prohibits the solicitation or publication of any information purporting to identify their physical appearance, whereabouts, movements or new identities. Mr Grieve said the public interest required its enforcement to mitigate the 'very real risk of serious physical harm or death' to anyone who might be identified, whether correctly or incorrectly, as being either of the killers. The Attorney General said after the ruling: 'An internet posting takes seconds but can have major consequences. These people were fully aware that there is an injunction in place which prevents publication of any images or information claiming to identify anyone as Jon Venables or Robert Thompson, yet they carried on. It has been in place for many years and applies to both media organisations and individuals. Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC took action against the men because he said breaching the injunction could lead to a 'very real risk' of harm or death to anyone identified It is irrelevant whether the postings in this case were of who they claimed to be. The order is meant not only to protect Venables and Thompson but also those members of the public who have been incorrectly identified as being either of them. Sir John said that Harkins, a 35-year-old househusband, and Liddle, 28, a graphic designer, had both removed the offending pictures very quickly and apologised. He added that a fine would be wholly inappropriate to the gravity of what was a serious contempt and an unprecedented case. He said it was plain that both knew of the prohibition on publication although they may not have known the full extent of the consequences of what they were doing. 'They became part of a determined internet campaign on the 20th anniversary of James Bulger's death. They joined in that campaign and we cannot accept it is in any way exculpatory that others were doing it. In the view of the court, their conduct has to be judged on the basis that they knew what they were doing was wrong, and it was no excuse that others were doing it. He said that the penalty had to make clear the determination of the court to protect the potentially numerous people at risk and the importance of upholding the rule of law. It is important to emphasise that no-one could or should contemplate taking the law into their own hands by encouraging the punishment of an offender by others which is not the punishment he has received in the courts. James Bulger was murdered in 1993 at the age of two, by 10-year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson Vigilantism has no place in a civilised country and it is for the purpose of deterring such conduct that we must have particular regard. The social media can reach many people as this case shows, and therefore the conduct of anyone publishing such information, whether it be on social media or elsewhere on the Internet, has that very serious consequence. Sir John said that the court would consider a custodial sentence, not only to punish but also to deter others, but would take the exceptional course of suspending it in this case. He warned there was very little prospect of an offender avoiding a very substantial and immediate custodial sentence if there was any future similar publication. Royal Courts of Justice: Sir John Thomas warned that there was very little prospect of a future offender avoiding a long and immediate jail sentence The judges had heard that Harkins had 141 friends on Facebook and his post had been shared 20,000 times. The father-of-three accepted he had been extremely foolish and had shown genuine remorse. Liddle, who had 915 followers on Twitter, undertook various charitable activities, the court was told, and an immediate custodial sentence would have major consequences for his profoundly deaf son. As they left the Royal Courts of Justice, Harkins said 'no comment' and Liddle said: 'I am just going to go home and see my son.' Venables and his friend Robert Thompson were only ten when they abducted, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger in Bootle, Merseyside in February 1993. They were released on licence in 2001 and given new identities, protected by an injunction granting them lifelong anonymity for fear of revenge attacks. Social media users were warned today of the consequences of breaching an injunction banning the revelation of the new identities of James Bulger's killers. The High Court said that the sentences imposed on Dean Liddle and Neil Harkins were not only to punish them but to deter others. Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen's Bench Division, said there was little prospect of an offender avoiding a very substantial immediate custodial sentence if there was any future similar publication. He added: 'Vigilantism has no place in a civilised country and it is for the purpose of deterring such conduct that we must have particular regard.' After the ruling, the Attorney General said: 'An internet posting takes seconds but can have major consequences. These people were fully aware that there is an injunction in place... yet they carried on.