Newsquest has been fined £3,000 for inadvertently breaching a Section 39 order under the Children and Young Persons Act by identifying a teenager involved in court proceedings.

The company appeared at Salisbury Magistrates’ Court in connection with a stabbing case in Plymouth. The Wiltshire Gazette & Herald covered the story about a local scout who was stabbed in Plymouth in its January 4 issue.

The story was not picked up by the newspaper from court but through contacts in the village involved.

But in featuring a story on the 15-year-old victim, the paper made a link to the court case and under strict liability rules unwittingly breached an order made at a remand hearing by magistrates in Plymouth.

In addition to the fine Newsquest (Oxfordshire and Wiltshire) was ordered to pay £750 compensation to the youngster involved.

Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, when imposed by a court, bans the media from identifying children and young people involved in a case including their name, address and school and publishing anything which is likely to lead to their identification in a report of the proceedings.

Rebecca Abbott, prosecuting, told magistrates that when a youth appeared in court in Plymouth on January 1, magistrates made an order under S39 Act not to name him. She said the article has caused the boy and his family distress.

Joanne Cash, defending, said the Gazette had been told the name by sources where the boy lives and had spoken to Devon and Cornwall police press office about the investigation into the stabbing and the subsequent court case but had not been told about the S39 order.

Although the order was made verbally in court it was not clear exactly when the court order was drawn up.

She said the paper had written a sympathetic article and had not intended to sensationalise the story or cause further distress to the boy and his family.

The prosecution conceded that it was understandable that the paper could not attend a court in Plymouth but it should not have relied on the police press office and that a call to the court office before the paper published the article would have made the order clear.

Newsquest’s head of legal, Simon Westrop, said: “The magistrates made a S39 order and they have a duty to make sure that order is communicated to the press.

“Equally, of course, the press has a duty to make reasonable enquiry. The circumstances here were unusual, but we accept that we should gone to the court to ask.”

He called for a clearer system for journalists to check on such orders – similar to a scheme operating in Scotland.

He said: “The courts really ought to have their own websites and put details of such orders on them.

“It’s very easy to set up and would help the media and the courts.”

The company was also ordered to pay £150 costs.