A teenager whose dangerous driving caused a crash which killed an unborn baby can be named for the first time after calls from the media.

Damian Pearl had his identity kept secret while his lawyers challenged a youth court’s decision in March that he could be named in media reports “in the public interest”.

Magistrates at King’s Lynn, Norfolk, had decided that the public needed protection from Pearl, a persistent offender then aged 17, and should be able to report him to police if he was seen behind the wheel of a car again.

And their decision has now been upheld by two High Court judges in London, despite arguments that it was “irrational” and breached the anonymity laws protecting the welfare of people under 18.

The magistrates held that Pearl’s name, address and photograph could be published so that if he was again seen “in possession of a dangerous weapon on the road”, he could be reported.

His challenge to that order highlighted the conflict between the principles of public justice and press freedom of expression and the welfare of children and young people.

As well as hearing argument by Pearl’s counsel, the High Court judges received written and oral submission from Mike Dodd, media law specialist at the Press Association, supported by the Eastern Daily Press and BBC Norwich.

Kris Gledhill, for Pearl, argued that the magistrates’ desire to alert the public if Pearl drove again was “unrealistic to the point of unreasonableness”.

He claimed their order would only result in “naming and shaming” – something which had been warned against by a former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, because it was not a valid reason for lifting the normal restrictions on naming juveniles.

Lord Justice Maurice Kay, sitting with Mr Justice Penry-Davey, ruled that the magistrates were entitled to take the view that the public needed to be protected.

He said: “I am entirely satisfied that the magistrates did not in any sense resort to the lifting of the right to anonymity in order further to punish the defendant or to name him and shame him.

“It may be that that was the unintended consequence. I have no doubt that the magistrates would be aware of that possibility.

“However, it seems to me they approached the question of public protection on a rational basis and in a manner that was appropriate.

“This was a very grievous case, coming at the end of a very serious recent history on the part of a 17-year-old.

“In my judgment, it has not been demonstrated that the youth court erred in making the order it did.”