AddThis SmartLayers

Case adjourned against weekly editor who named youth defendant

A weekly newspaper editor who defied reporting restrictions to name a youth defendant in a court story has made his first appearance in court.

The Crown Prosecution Service has been given 28 days to consider its case against Thomas Sinclair, editor of the Pembrokeshire Herald, after he appeared at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court yesterday morning.

As previously reported on HTFP, Thomas had vowed to fight prosecution under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for naming the teenager in a report which appeared in the Herald in February.

Matthew Paul, defending, told the court that a press release issued by the Milford Haven Port Authority relating the youth’s prosecution, though not naming him directly, contained enough information to identify the teen.

Thomas Sinclair, right, with barrister Matthew Paul outside court

Thomas Sinclair, right, with barrister Matthew Paul outside court

Mr Paul said Thomas “accepts he has no available defence to the charge, however, in the circumstances, it would be unfair and oppressive” to prosecute him.

He claimed the Port Authority had also breached the Act in the issuing of the press release and should therefore also face prosecution.

District Judge Simon Morgan told him: “As a journalist you would know proceedings in a youth court were subject to the 1933 Act.

“Even if this youth had appeared in an adult court, an order prohibiting publication of his identity would have been issued as a matter of course due to his age.

“Any journalist not present at such a hearing would surely have contacted the court to check what orders were in place in relation to a youth who had appeared.”

However, Mr Morgan accepted that the CPS should be given time to consider whether to bring a further prosecution against the Port Authority.

Mr Paul requested 14 days adjournment, but when questioned by the judge the CPS prosecutor requested more time. The judge granted adjournment for 28 days and the case will continue on October 10.

Thomas told HTFP yesterday afternoon: “Today in court I successfully petitioned for an adjournment in the case whilst the CPS consider if it is in the public interest to prosecute the case.

“The reasons for this were because the CPS is prosecuting me for an offence which was also committed by the Milford Haven Port Authority, who were the prosecutors of the youth involved in the case.

“The best outcome for me would be for the CPS to decide that it is unfair to proceed with the case as the Port Authority have not been prosecuted for their breach of the same Act of Parliament.”

7 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • September 9, 2016 at 9:17 am
    Permalink

    “Matthew Paul, defending, told the court that a press release issued by the Milford Haven Port Authority relating the youth’s prosecution, though not naming him directly, contained enough information to identify the teen.”

    Oh dear. Press releases naming defendants completely are pretty common, as were press releases naming – for example – rape victims, the onus is on you to know that you can’t name them.

    Really poor form and as I said on the previous story, a sign of the times.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(24)
  • September 9, 2016 at 12:44 pm
    Permalink

    He is being prosecuted for naming the kid, the press release did not name him.

    If, as is claimed, there was some jigsaw identification issues that is still not a reason for them to name him.

    The editor alone decided to name the kid, I think it’s fine to prosecute him and not the Port Authority.

    I imagine the CPS will conclude that as the editor did not just publish the press release in full but actually added the kid’s name then he committed the breach not the Port Authority.

    And all the time the legal costs are rising…….

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • September 9, 2016 at 2:35 pm
    Permalink

    I find this case fascinating.

    I’ve seldom if ever witnessed such an apparently catastrophic misunderstanding of publishing law.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(16)
  • September 9, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    Permalink

    Johnny Cochrane himself couldn’t get this guy off the hook. Baffled too at the picture outside court, is he trying to drum up media support for his case? This is a judge right? Not Mrs Brown?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • September 9, 2016 at 4:27 pm
    Permalink

    Sounds clear cut – he went ahead naming this bod knowing there was ginormous risk. Should have known better. Sloppy/barmy..

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • September 9, 2016 at 6:33 pm
    Permalink

    Hopefully he gets found guilty, sending a clear message to lazy editors

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • September 10, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    Permalink

    In bygone days, whenever a jounalist colleague appeared before the beak, his friends on the Press bench would take great delight in including the line “The defendant, who described himself as a journalist……..”
    I think it would be apt in this case.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)