That would make sense. He far outweighs what youth provisions are set up for.
"The identity of a child aged between 10 and 17 charged with a crime will not be disclosed outside the court.
Those permitted inside the court include the usual participants in cases heard in court; ranging from officers of the court, to the parties, parents and guardians, and bona fide members of the press.
Reporting restrictions include not revealing the name, home address or school of any young person concerned in the proceedings, or particulars – including photographs - which may make identifying them likely.
They will remain anonymous throughout proceedings but these restrictions can be challenged – usually by the media – after proceedings have ended."
www.cps.gov.uk
But I believe individual decisions can be made on a balance of public interest vs harm to the child, which is what has happened here. In 6 days time he would be 18 anyway and restrictions dropped, 6 days of misinformation has the potential to escalate riots. Its almost unprecedented, I can't think of a single other case where the decision has been made but equally, I don't know any so close to 18. One wonders if he acted pre-turning 18 deliberately to get lighter treatment?
Charging children in the UK at all is a last resort, we don't seal records at 18 and once they have a record they have a record. Therefore they try and avoid criminalising children in the first place