A regional press journalist who was fined £1,000 for publishing a picture of a teenager who had appeared in a youth court is to appeal.

The Crawley News carried a story about a youth who had appeared in court, who was the subject of an application for an antisocial behaviour order.

It was accompanied by a picture showing the teenager, with his eyes and nose blacked out. But his mouth and hair were visible, and led to claims that he could be identified.

Sherif El-Alfry, production editor at Reigate-based East Surrey and Sussex News and Media, had denied publishing a picture in contravention of section 49 (1) (b) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, arguing that the prosecution was being brought against the wrong person.

That part of the Act gives any juvenile appearing in a youth court automatic anonymity, while section 49 (1) (b) bans the publication of any picture “being or including a picture of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings”.

Section 49 (9) says that if a published report includes information or a picture in contravention of section 49 (1), then “the following persons, that is to say… in the case of publication of a written report or a picture as part of a newspaper, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper…” are liable to prosecution.

Media Lawyer reports how media law specialist barrister Antony Hudson argued before District Judge Ede that the wording was clearly intended to mean the person normally known as the editor of a newspaper – the person with ultimate editorial responsibility for what was published, which in this case would have been the editor-in-chief of the group.

The group’s structure meant that each newspaper had a content editor, who decided what would be used.

Production of pages for all of the group’s 17 titles was handled by El-Alfry, the group’s production editor, and a team of sub-editors, who were based at the Reigate office.

While El-Alfry saw the final versions of pages, he was not the person with ultimate editorial responsibility.

The prosecution had argued that El-Alfry could be prosecuted, as he was the editor with responsibility for the page, and that the Act did not specify that the person to be prosecuted had to be the editor rather than a departmental editor.

El-Alfry was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £500 costs at a hearing at Hasting Magistrates’ Court on November 11.