Comments on: Newspaper halts bid to impose reporting restrictions in same case twice

By: Stu Arnold

Stu Arnold — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:54:28 +0000

This frequently causes confusion – it’s regularly assumed that a section 39 order made at magistrates automatically carries to the higher court when it doesn’t. However try telling that to those who work in the courts sometimes!

Unfortunately, it’s not uncomon for unlawful orders to be made restricting reporting. Another problem is that when legal guidance is issued from the top it doesn’t always trickle down to those who have to put it into practice.

Good stuff anyway Gareth – it takes a lot of nerve to stand up and oppose an application in this way, even for experienced journalists.

Report this comment

By: Gareth Lightfoot

Gareth Lightfoot — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 07:55:42 +0000

As clarified in this very useful 2009 document, Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts – http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5AC4E743-55FE-4E31-9FAB-7BBEC3DF1B89/0/crown_court_reporting_restrictions_021009.pdf – a S39 order “only applies to the proceedings in the court by which it was made”. So an order made by magistrates needs to be made afresh at Crown.

Report this comment

By: Ex-Gazette chief

Ex-Gazette chief — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:35:26 +0000

Gareth is an extremely experienced court reporter and there’s very little he doesn’t know about reporting restrictions. If he says the S39 doesn’t carry to crown court, I wouldn’t argue with him!

Report this comment

By: House Rules

House Rules — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:03:48 +0000

I can’t find anything definitive either way.

At the very least the Crown Court should reiterate that there are reporting restrictions on the case at the first hearing.

I would assume the Mags order is in place until the case goes before the CC for the first time (otherwise as soon as it goes on the CC list a journo could report it).

But if the CC then made no mention of it in first hearing then it becomes a bit of a grey area.
The fact the judge in this case did not say that the order remained from the mags makes me think it doesn’t carry if no request is made in the first hearing.

Report this comment

By: Tog

Tog — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:27:24 +0000

Not sure about that because the crown proceedings would be new following the magistrates decision to decline jurisdiction in order to commit to crown.

Report this comment

By: jon

jon — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:57:09 +0000

I thought Section 39s imposed in the magistrates court carried through to the crown court.

Please see below wording of the clause under CPYA and note point 1 – the phrase ”in relation to ANY proceedings in ANY court.”

I read this to mean a section 39 imposed on a given court case applies to other courts the case comes before. Am I mistaken?

“39 Power to prohibit publication of certain matter in newspapers.

(1)In relation to any proceedings in any court . . . F1, the court may direct that—

(a)no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person [F2by or against] or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken, or as being a witness therein:

(b)no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid;

except in so far (if at all) as may be permitted by the direction of the court.

(2)Any person who publishes any matter in contravention of any such direction shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding [F3level 5 on the standard scale].”

Report this comment