A hole has been left in the hearts of the Reading community after 13 year old Oliver Stephens died in a Reading park.

The teenager was victim of a fatal stabbing in Bugs Bottom fields, Emmer Green, on Sunday (January 3).

Reports have since been circulating online about individuals who may or may not be involved in the murder investigation, as well as details being shared and comments online about the attack.

READ MORE: Social media users could be ‘breaking the law’ by sharing material relating to Oliver Stephens

The latest information which can be reported is that three teenagers have been charged with murder in connection with the incident.

The force has confirmed a 13-year-old girl and two boys, aged 13 and 14, all from Reading, have been charged with murder and conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm.

ALSO READ: Emmer Green 'stabbing': Teenagers charged with murder after death of Olly Stephens in Reading

The girl has also been charged with perverting the course of justice.

All three suspects have today appeared at Reading Magistrates' Court and will later appear at Reading Crown Court.

Two other boys, both aged 13, have been released on bail, with strict conditions, until February 1.

Thames Valley Police has issued a warning to those sharing details related to the investigation online.

As legal proceedings have begun, there is a risk of contempt of court in publishing any information on the three teenagers who have been charged following Sunday's stabbing, including reports of previous convictions.

Why can't the teenagers be named?

Reporting restrictions are in place due to Section 45 of the Children and Young Person's Act 1999, which gives anonymity to juveniles appearing in an adult court.

This means you cannot publish their name, address, identity of any school or education establishment they attend, identity of place of work, or any picture or video of them.

This order is in force until the juvenile reaches the age of 18.

However, the court can extend this for lifetime anonymity under section 45A of the act if it is satisfied the juvenile is in fear or distress about being publicly identified of being involved in the case.

Although, the order can also be lifted if the court is satisfied it would impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of the proceedings, and it is in the public interest to remove or relax the restriction.

In order to allow police to carry out their investigation, and serve the community of Reading in the best way possible, The Chronicle will be sticking to legal guidelines throughout this case.

As the investigation continues and the proceedings continue through court, more details will emerge and can be published to our readers.

We hope you understand that, as the local newspaper for the area, our aim is to keep everyone informed while ensuring that court proceedings are not put at risk, and justice can be rightfully served.