Regular readers of this column will know that every so often, I get agitated about Courts which wrongly impose reporting restrictions. So it’s only fair to publicise a certain Judge in a certain Court who did not make a reporting restriction Order, because it’s an interesting tale from which all Court reporters might benefit, I think.

The background is that a 16 year old boy committed a number of sexual offences against three girls aged between 11 and 13. He avoided prison, and instead, he was made the subject of a Youth Rehabilitation Order, which included being made to attend an intensive treatment programme. When he failed to participate, he was hauled back to the Crown Court and given a detention order.

The local paper duly reported the hearing and his detention, and properly named him in the usual way.

So far, so normal.

But then the boy’s mother complained, and alleged that her son should not have been identified. She contacted the local Youth Offending Team, which responded by saying that they would immediately complain to the Judge. Some might think that this was just a knee-jerk reaction based on a lack of knowledge and information. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Anyway, there then followed some detective work by the Editor, and what was unearthed does not reflect at all well on those who administer the criminal justice system.

The Crown Court initially said that the Editor should contact the Magistrates’ Court because that’s where any orders would have been made. It goes without saying that this was completely wrong, because a lower Court cannot bind a higher Court. If the Magistrates had made a reporting restriction order when they had the case, it ceased to have effect when the case moved up to the Crown Court.

But in any event, when enquiries were made, the Magistrates Court could not find any information. They did not even know if the prosecution had started out in an adult Magistrate’s Court or in the Youth Court (where automatic reporting restrictions apply).

So back to the Crown Court. The Court staff then said they were certain an ‘old’ S.39, or possibly a ‘new’ S.45, Order had been made, which prevented the Defendant from being identified. The local freelance Court reporter was equally certain that the Judge had made an Order, and his view was that the Editor should apologise to the Judge to try to nip any problem in the bud.

But this was not an appealing option in the light of our lack of knowledge. Much better to find out all the facts, and then take a view.

The problem was that despite repeated requests, the Court could not produce the written version of the Order they were so certain the Judge had made. This was in itself suspicious, because the law is clear: if a Court makes a reporting restriction, the terms of the Order must be put in writing and publicised. How can journalists be expected to abide by an Order if the Court does not tell them about it?

At this point, local knowledge was used to really good effect. Rather than having to go to the expense of convening a formal hearing, with lawyers for all those concerned appearing before the Judge, the freelance used his contacts to get before the Judge personally. After all, they had known each other for years, from the time when His Honour had been a local criminal barrister.

And sensible chap that he is, the Judge willingly confirmed that he had not made any reporting restriction Order, for the simple reason that the youth’s counsel had not asked for one. And although he expressed no view as to whether he would have made an Order had he been asked, the Editor could not help concluding that his sympathies lay with the victims and not the Defendant.

So what lessons can Court reporters learn from this tale? Well, as ever, it comes down to a few basic principles:

• Reporting restriction Orders must be obeyed, even if they are wrong (and are later overturned).
• If you think a reporting restriction Order has been made, make a nuisance of yourself until the Court gives you a written copy of it.
• Assume nothing.
• Remember that a lower Court cannot bind a higher Court.
• Do not make any significant decision (such as apologising to the Judge for a suspected infraction) without having all the facts to hand.
• When appropriate, use your local contacts with Court staff, local barristers, and even local Judges.
• Pay attention to detail, more detail, and yet more detail.

Which is why the editor in question is absolutely right to tell his reporters that when it comes to court copy, “read every line properly; question, question, question; and take nothing for granted”.

I couldn’t have put it better myself!