The media has been banned from naming a teenager involved in a murder trial – for now.

The 18-year-old’s defence said naming him could expose him, his family and potential witnesses to the threat of intimidation, Media Lawyer reports.

The youth, who is one of two teenagers charged with murdering 17-year-old Joe Dymond-Williams in July, was 17 at the time of the attack.

He had been granted anonymity order under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 but the order will remain in place despite him turning 18 last month.

His co-defendant is still 17 and therefore covered by a section 39 order.

Press Association reporter James Woodward challenged the order at a hearing at Bristol Crown Court last Friday.

He argued there was no evidence to demonstrate any concrete threat to any of the defendants or witnesses.

Mr Woodward also stated that if police wanted to ensure the defendants’ safety, they could have applied to have them remanded in custody.

Statements also indicated that many people already knew where the older defendant and his family lived and could have launched attacks had they wished.

Andrew Langdon QC, who was defending the 18-year-old, argued there was a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice.

He said the history of the case had shown that members of the community were determined to identify the defendants and to advertise their identities.

He also said there was “an identifiable risk” of vigilante attacks if the defendants’ locations – at home or work – became known.

Finally, Mr Langdon said identifying the older of the two defendants was likely to lead to identification of the younger one.

His argument was supported by both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Justice Royce decided after hearing the argument the Section 39 order should remain in place.

He said: “It is abundantly clear that the circumstances of this alleged offence have been such as to give rise to strong emotions and the contents of the statements demonstrate that associates of the victim’s family appear to be intent on reprisals or intimidation of (the older defendant) and or his family.

“His parents are in fact witnesses of fact in relation to the events on the night in question.

“It is apparent from statements from (his) mother and another witness that there is considerable fear of action being taken against them and or their property.”

The judge concluded the order should stay in place either until the end of the trial or such a stage within the trial that it would be right to review the order.