County council officials are to review their policy on anonymity for children after a newspaper successfully fought an attempt to stop it identifying a baby in a cruelty case.

The Eastern Daily Press argued that the 11-month-old child involved was too young to be affected by publicity and said the order would have prevented it from naming the defendant or saying that he was the child’s stepfather.

Norfolk County Council sought the anonymity order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, arguing that naming the child in reports of the criminal proceedings would affect proceedings in the Family Court under the Children Act.

EDP assistant editor Paul Durrant originally succeeded in challenging the making of a section 39 order when the case was being sent to Norwich Crown Court by magistrates.

But after publishing a brief story about the hearing the paper received a letter from Norfolk County Council’s legal department challenging its right to name the baby, and threatening an injunction if it named the child in any other reports.

It also said it would try to get a Section 39 order re-imposed when the case went to the Crown Court for a plea and directions hearing in January, but had no objection to the child being named after care proceedings had finished.

Paul said the paper would not report the plea and directions hearing in January and would only report the case when the trial started, but without notifying the newspaper the county council persuaded a judge to make a new Section 39 order.

Paul then sought the right to challenge it, and Judge Peter Jacobs arranged a hearing at Norwich Crown Court where the order was lifted.

The judge told the court: “It is highly unlikely that anybody is going to say to this child ‘Oh by the way didn’t I see you in the EDP six years ago?’ People in six years’ time are more likely to raise this if they knew the child in the first place. I can’t see any reasons to uphold (the order).”

After the hearing, Paul told Media Lawyer: “We were only ever fighting this on a point of principle that babies should not be covered by section 39 orders, and we walk into a protracted issue with the county council arguing a point that was never logically sustainable.

“It particularly disappoints me that the council sought to get the order reinstated when I thought we had a gentlemen’s agreement that no action was necessary by anyone so that public money need not be squandered on legal to-ing and fro-ing.

“We have no interest in reporting this case at the moment and would happily have waited until the conclusion of the care proceedings.”

A spokesman for Norfolk County Council said: “We are having a meeting to discuss this, as the case seems to have gone against what normally happens. I am not entirely sure why this case has gone the way it has.”