Legal arguments to dismiss the case against two Sussex newspaper editors accused of breaching a high court order have been rejected – and the pair must return for trial on March 5.

Evening Argus editor Simon Bradshaw, and West Sussex County Times editorial director David Briffett, both deny publishing articles that contravened the court order banning identification of a teenage boy.

The case hinges on section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which, when imposed by a court, bans the media from identifying children and young people involved in a case, including their name, address and school and publishing anything “calculated” to lead to their identification.

The High Court imposed the section 39 order in the case of the boy, who successfully challenged his school’s decision to expel him.

Although the articles did not reveal the boy’s name, address or school, the prosecution argued that publication of his age, expulsion date and start date at a new school had led to his identification.

Gavin Millar QC, defending, argued the case should be dismissed becausethe section 39 order did not cover civil proceedings and had not been set outclearly enough for the defendants to face criminal charges.

He said: “It can be very difficult for editors and journalists to try togauge what they can or cannot report.

“This is a very unusual case and could lead to the conviction of newspapereditors in a free and democratic society for reporting court proceedings.”

He also argued that the editors were further protected from prosecution under the European Convention of Human Rights which guaranteed freedom of expression.

But Neil Moore, prosecuting, told the court how the section 39 had been valid and clear and the teenager also had rights under the Convention.

He said: “In any decent society vulnerable people are protected.

“Children would face too much damage to have their personal lives readabout in the press.”

Chair of the bench Rosemary Scott said the order could be made in anycourt proceedings and its purpose had been clear.

She told the court: “It was sufficiently clear to the defendants to enablethem to know what would constitute a breach of the order.

“Freedom of expression is particularly important in the case of newspapers.

“This freedom may be subject to restriction and a section 39 order is such a restriction.”

The trial continues on March 5.

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