A weekly newspaper has been ordered to pay a fine of £900 and compensation to a group of youths whose details were wrongly included in a story in breach of a court order.
The Milton Keynes Citizen published the names of two defendants and one victim, who were all aged 17 or under, in a news in brief item about a mobile phone robbery.
The case, in September 2011, was heard in youth court at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court and the three were automatically covered by a section 49 order banning the reporting of anything that would lead to their identification.
Publisher Premier Newspapers, part of Johnston Press, pleaded guilty to the single charge of breaking the order at St Albans Magistrates’ Court yesterday and were fined £900. It was also ordered to pay £25 compensation to each of the three youths.
The same charge against the Citizen’s editor, Olga Norford, was subsequently dropped. She sat in court alongside Chris Pennock, managing director of JP’s South Midlands Publishing Unit.
Jonathan Scherbel-Ball, in mitigation, told the court that the junior reporter who wrote the article was under the impression that the court, which also dealt with adult cases, was not acting in a youth court situation at the time the case was heard.
He added that the reporter also believed the legal age of an adult in court was 16, and not 18.
The mistake, not spotted by any senior staff, was carried in the newspaper on 19 January this year.
Mr Scherbel-Ball said: “Premier Newspapers fully accepts responsibility and have asked me to express their deep regret to those involved and to the court for the inconvenience this has caused.
“The publisher takes it legal obligations very seriously. It was a completely innocent mistake made with no intention against those involved or to interfere with the course of justice.”
During his mitigation he urged chair magistrate Bernard Greenwold not to hand out an “excessive fine” because he feared it could have an effect on the future of court reporting by regional papers, who he added were struggling financially during the economic downturn.
He added that the paper has never previously had any libel or PCC complaints made against it and that staff were horrified when they realised the mistake.
Roseanne Smith, of the Crown Prosecution Service, told the court that the publication of the defendants’ names had caused them great embarrassment and anxiety.
Alongside the compensation and fine, Premier Newspapers were ordered to pay £85 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
Mr Pennock said afterwards that he had nothing to add.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Youth court is a freaking minefield even for experienced staff.
Don’t think a junior should be sent solo.
It’s asking for trouble.
Report this comment
‘The reporter also believed the legal age of an adult in court was 16, and not 18.’ Get that reporter on a law course!
Report this comment
@Newshound surely if they are a junior they have at least been on a NCTJ pre-entry course?
If not then shocking.
@Cherry. It does not say anywhere that the reporter went to court. I think (and that fact a junior did this makes me think I may be right ) that they were sat with a court list of results and were asked to write up some nibs from it.
The fact it was not spotted says a lot about journalism at the moment.
Report this comment
Can’t recall the last time I saw a report of a youth court in any local newspaper so good that this particular paper is covering them.
It is a minefield and no place for a junior reporter, unless they are there alongside a senior who has been on the appropriate training courses.
Report this comment
Before pontificating about the professional credentials of the junior reporter (probably overworked and exploited, as is the case these days at far too many rags) is it not worth pointing out that glaring legals like this should be picked up at the subbing stage? Shucks…… silly me, just remembered…… newspaper managers don’t seem to see (nor understand) the point of subs these days!
Report this comment
Well said, Watching from afar. The beleauguered reporter gets a blot on his career because of insufficient training and inadequate supervision, all a result of industry cutbacks. And it’s always the poor workers wot gets the blame…
Report this comment
Something similar happened to me years ago – but the opposite way round (ie I was let down by more ‘senior’ staff) I picked up a cracking story in court one day as a junior reporter about a teacher assaulting his own son. The court imposed a non-identification order to protect the young son meaning that the father could not be identified as being the father, only named as an adult beating up an anonymous boy. As most of the evidence related to the father beating the son up in his bedroom it was virtually impossible to name him without giving the game away that he was actually the father of the unnamed boy – thus identifying the boy as his son. I tried explaining this to the editor, news editor and anyone else who would listen. None did. They named the father without altering the copy and the paper was prosecuted for contempt. In his defence, the editor shamefully blamed me (!) for not understanding the law when it was him who had made the decision to name the father despite the obvious danger. What a fool. Never respected him after that.
Report this comment