A trainee reporter successfully blocked an application for a court order banning the identification of a two-year-old assault victim.

Sundeep Kumar, who joined the Worcester Evening News last February, was at a court case in which a father was found guilty of beating up his girlfriend and hurting his son during a drunken row.

But after the magistrates left the courtroom, the clerk decided that they had forgotten to pass a Section 39 order, which would ban the Evening News from reporting the name of the child – and therefore the name of the defendant.

As she went to bring the magistrates back in, Sundeep spoke up.

Sundeep addressed the court, quoting three examples from MacNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, where Section 39 orders banning very small children from being named were overturned for being unreasonable.

He said: “I always take my MacNae’s to court with me to read between cases, and I knew magistrates shouldn’t pass Section 39 orders on very young children. So I told the clerk I would be opposing it.

“The CPS prosecutor agreed with me, saying a Section 39 order would severely restrict my report, and that it would shield the defendant from publicity. The magistrates considered this and decided not to pass the order.

“I’m glad I took my MacNae’s to court with me.”

Editor of the Newsquest title, Stewart Gilbert, said: This is another perfect example of our reporters being better versed in newspaper law that the magistrates or their clerks.

“Well done to Sundeep for taking the bold step of speaking up in the courtroom and allowing good sense to prevail”.

Back to the law index

Do you have a story about the regional press? Ring 0116 227 3122/3121, or
e-mail [email protected]