The Oxford Mail has won a protracted battle over pictures of a teenage yob after telling magistrates that they had no power to stop it.

A 17-year-old joyrider caused havoc on an Oxford estate for five years and was given an interim Asbo in July, followed by a full order in January banning him from riding in cars.

Initially the Mail was banned from running his address, despite arguing the usual grounds of identification, and was then ordered by the District Judge making the full Asbo it could not run his picture.

The teenager’s lawyer claimed it would adversely affect the boy and his mother.

But this week the Mail finally got around the judicial obstacles when the defendant appeared for sentence for breaching the interim Asbo and crashing a stolen car while drink driving.

Previously the Mail had got the identity restrictions removed on the breach charge before the full Asbo proceedings were heard, although it did not have a picture to run because he was, at that time, on remand.

But when he appeared at Oxford Youth Court this week and the Mail got a snatch picture, his lawyer applied to have the ban on a picture reinstated.

Group news editor Jason Collie opposed the defence application on the conventional grounds that, while a picture had never been published, the restriction had been removed at the earlier hearing and it would be a case of shutting the gate after the horse had bolted.

He said his fear was that magistrates will sometimes ‘overlook’ the commonsense argument and even statute if they want to protect a youth.

Jason said: “We also put in the argument that there was nothing in statute that could allow them to re-impose the ban.

“While statute allows restrictions to be made and allows courts to remove them, there is nothing in law saying they can then be put back on.

“It left, in our submission, nowhere the bench could go.

“There was also the defence claim of article 8 under human rights for right to privacy which we knocked down and even one suggestion section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 until I proved to the clerk and lawyer that section is still not in force.”

The defence argued it was inconsistent with the intention of the Asbo judge, yet the newspaper countered these were separate proceedings and the case merited full publication of all identifying features.

Jason added: “After an hour’s deliberation, the bench sided with us totally.

“In the end the magistrates agreed on the public interest and persistent offending arguments anyway so they were fully on our side.

“It has been a long haul on being able to show his face but there was clear public interest and identification issues. It shows you have to keep fighting these things when you’re right, even when you have already had District Judges against you.”