Page 2 of 2

He said: “Section 39 comes from the basis that an editor has freedom topublish, apart from exceptions which the court can lay down.

“If there is someone with their nose around the lace curtains every day of the week, a sensible court would say that would not amount to a likelihood they were going to identify.”

The judges said it was down to responsible editors to judge what could bereported under a Section 39 order.

It is the first time a conviction under Section 39 has been appealed in theHigh Court.

Speaking after the case Gavin Miller QC, for the appellants, said: “I thinkwhat will emerge from this judgement is that if judges want to restrictreporting they have to do so clearly.

“It is not good enough just to make some kind of general order. There is a positive obligation on the part of the judge to make a clear order. The court is an arm of the state and freedom of expression is incredibly important.”

He said the case sent a warning to the CPS about attempting to prosecute journalists and editors under Section 39.

Dominic Ward, solicitor for Mr Bradshaw and Mr Briffett said: “This is acase where two very experienced editors were criminalised in circumstanceswhere they took care not to identify the child. They exercised judgement asto what could or could not be published.

“The underlying order was in our view vague and of dubious clarity. It ispretty clear from comments made from the Bench that the court feltuncomfortable about a criminal conviction standing on the basis of an orderwhich was vague and unclear.”

Mr Bradshaw said: “I’m very happy to have the spectre of the convictionhanging over me lifted.

“This decision defends the rights of newspapers to properly report thecourts which the original magistrates decision threatened to destroy.”

The question of costs will be decided at the same time as the writtenjudgement is given.

Back to the law index