A weekly newspaper has won a court victory after challenging a judge’s attempt to prevent court officials disclosing a defendant’s age and address to the press.

An usher at Reading Crown Court refused to supply the details to the Reading Post following a direction by Judge Nicholas Wood.

As reporter Linda Fort asked the the usher for defendant Leigh Peppiatt’s address and date of birth, his barrister John Simmons intervened and told the usher he shouldn’t give it to her and told her to apply to the judge.

Judge Wood then told her:  “I can’t stop the press publishing the address . But an officer of the court, be it a clerk or an usher, is not obliged to reveal that if it has not been said in open court.”

However the paper’s news editor, Sarah Hamilton, then wrote to the judge asking him to review the decision and citing case law in support of her argument.

Judge Wood has now ruled in the Post’s favour following discussion with some of the court’s other judges.

Commented Sarah:  “Despite this being a routine method of getting defendant details from the court since time immemorial, the judge said he wouldn’t allow it.”

“If the detail was read out in court then fine, but we couldn’t ask for it from a court clerk or admin staff from their court papers.”

In her letter, Sarah pointed out a 2009 protocol which says court staff are “encouraged to cooperate with local newspapers when they make enquiries.”

Here is the letter in full:

Your Honour,

We submit to you today a challenge to your direction in the above case yesterday that court clerks should not be allowed to supply the press with identification details of defendants if not said in open court. We respectfully invite you to consider our arguments and review the decision you came to yesterday.

As you know, defendants’ names, dates of birth and addresses are needed to avoid implicating someone else with the same details. A name and date of birth is simply not enough to meet our legal obligations to avoid defamation and prevents us reporting this trial as it currently stands.

Indeed, a protocol issued by the Courts Service in 2009 says: ‘Court staff are encouraged to cooperate with local newspapers when they make enquiries’ and we would say this would include providing defendant’s details from court documents.

You said you did not mind the defendant’s details to be used but when only it is mentioned in open court, not provided by court staff. The High Court ruled in 1988 that a defendant’s address should normally be stated in court (R v Evesham Justices, ex p McDonagh [1988] QB 553; [1988] 1 All ER 371), so perhaps counsel or Your Honour could state Peppiatt’s details in open court today, which would then meet your requirements.

Throughout our responsible attendance and reporting of court matters over the years at this and other courts, we have never had any problems or judge interception of obtaining information from the court office or clerks and staff have always provided the details we have needed.

This is why we suggest we should be allowed to be given this information in the Peppiatt case and in any further cases Your Honour presides over. We suggest not doing so would frustrate open justice and the contemporaneous reporting of a case – for we cannot report this trial until the defendant’s full details are known.

If you are not mindful to grant our request, could you please advise us of your reasons and on what legal basis.

If you have any further questions, reporter Natasha Adkins will be in court to address any points.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Hamilton,
News Editor,
Reading Post