Page 2 of 2

"We believe Parliament's intention was to apply this law to this kind of person and not just a complete stranger."

Magistrates accepted that work colleagues of the boy's mother had identified the boy because of their background knowledge and not because of the articles.

However, Mrs Scott said a family friend with children at the same school as the boy before he was excluded, had been able to identify him from the details published.

The editors were each fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £1,095 costs between them.

Mrs Scott said: "You are both professionals in your field and should have taken more care."

Speaking after the case, Dominic Ward, for the defendants, said the case had far-reaching implications for all journalists.

He said: "The difficult feature in this is for editors, who are under enormous time pressures, to know which facts to leave in and which to take out.

"This will now be virtually impossible because they do not know what background knowledge people already have.

"The danger of this is that it is likely to lead to a climate of self-censorship in the press."Bradshaw said: "Editors will now have to examine if cases involving a section 39 order can be reported on at all. That is an extremely chilling prospect."

The editors said they would appeal.

Do you have a story for us?
Ring the HoldTheFrontPage newsdesk on
01332 291111 x6022, or to e-mail us now - click here