A newspaper found itself snookered by a judge’s invalid reporting restriction but eventually secured an important victory for open justice.

The Herald, in Plymouth, wanted to report openly the trial of ex-solider Michael Burridge, (28).

Burridge was found guilty on March 4 of murdering his eight-week-old son Rees by crushing his ribs and causing head injuries in a fit of temper.

The Herald wanted to report issues raised in open court as to whether the innocent actions of Burridge’s daughter, then aged two, had played any part in her baby brother’s death.

But the judge, Mr Justice Royce, imposed an invalid order under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, gagging any reporting which might lead to her identification.

This meant during the two-week trial the press could not mention that, when Burridge was initially arrested, he asked police whether his daughter could be responsible for his son’s injuries.

Burridge initially claimed that several weeks before the boy’s death, his daughter was seen holding Rees up by his throat and, after being told to stop, dropped him to the floor where he banged his head.

During the trial medical evidence proved that any such incident could not have caused the fatal injuries. When Burridge himself gave evidence, he did not try to rely on that possibility.

In the judge’s words, the issue “shrank into the background, and in reality disappeared”.

The Herald remained concerned that its freedom to report the case was being restricted by a Section 39 order which was invalid because they provide no power to protect the identity of a child who is not “concerned in the proceedings”.

The daughter, now aged three-and-a-half, was not a witness, victim or defendant therefore was not “concerned” in the case within the meaning of the Act.

Following legal advice, crime reporter Carl Eve asked the judge to lift the Section 39 order at the end of February.

The Herald’s solicitors, Foot Anstey, followed up with written representations to the judge. They stated the Section 39 order was invalid and requested that both it and any injunction should be revoked, or at least varied so The Herald would be free to report the aspect involving Burridge’s daughter without directly naming her.

The judge’s response was to request further oral representations.

Seeing an important point of principle, editor Bill Martin decided to instruct specialist counsel Mr Anthony Hudson to challenge the Section 39 order and injunction.

At the hearing on March 4, the judge instantly revoked the invalid Section 39 order that he had maintained for the preceding six days despite legal representations.

Before counsel could say a word, Mr Justice Royce said: “Mr Hudson, no jurisdiction? I agree. The order under Section 39 will be discharged.”

Herald news editor James Garnett said: “As it turned out, the incident with Burridge’s daughter became almost immaterial to his defence so although important, it was not crucial to the story.

“But we were determined to fight the invalid Section 39 order on a point of principle.”

While it was a victory for open justice, the paper had to shoulder its legal costs.