A regional daily newspaper successfully challenged a court order to name a man who is facing charges over the murder of a baby.
The Grimsby Telegraph was reporting on the case of Jason Redgrave, who last week was charged with the murder of six-month old Ethan Hopson.
He had had already been facing a charge of causing grievous bodily harm to the baby with intent but the charge was changed following a second post mortem.
Ethan died two days after his life support machine was switched off at Sheffield Children’s Hospital on 20 December. Initial findings were that he died of head injuries that were not caused accidentally.
The Telegraph has been following the case in court since December when reporting restrictions were put in place at Grimsby Crown Court.
These banned publication of details of both Ethan and Redgrave in connection with the case.
But the restrictions were lifted by Judge Michael Mettyear at Hull Crown Court in January after an application by the Telegraph and he allowed the names of those involved in the matter to be reported for the first time.
The Telegraph told HTFP that a letter had been sent to the judge via the newspaper’s lawyers.
A Section 39 Order had initially been applied to the case as the baby was still alive when it began. That order was automatically lifted when the baby died.
However, the Telegraph still had to apply to life a Section 11 Order which banned the naming of the baby and the defendant.
After reporting restrictions were lifted, the Telegraph was able to publish a detailed tribute to the life of Ethan from his mother
The case has been adjourned until 18 June for tria.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Really annoying this – both on the court’s part and the Telegraph’s part. Where’s the need for an expensive solictor’s letter when it’s quite clear in the Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts protocol that “children of tender year’s can not be harmed by publicity and therefore a s39 order is unnecessary? I would hope any newsdesk worth it’s salt would know this.
As for a s11 order, That should have easily been challenged using the same protocol. Benefit and comfort of defendents – does that ring a bell?
If you’re not familiar with the protocol, agreed between their industry and ours, look it up.
While I’m on, can we please have post mortem examination, not just post mortem.
Report this comment