The Press and Journal in Aberdeen has been cleared of breaking the law by naming a 15-year-old boy accused of murder.

On April 15 last year, the newspaper took the decision to name Luke Mitchell as the teenager charged with the murder of Edinburgh girl Jodi Jones.

Aberdeen Journals was charged with breaching the Criminal Procedure Act, which bans publication of details which would lead to the identification of anyone under 16 involved in criminal proceedings before a court.

The case hinged on whether proceedings were active when the paper published the name.

It carried the headline “Boyfriend charged with murdering schoolgirl Jodi”, and identified the boyfriend as Luke Mitchell.

The Crown alleged it identified Mitchell as a person under the age of 16, against whom court proceedings were active.

The Crown Office had issued guidance to editors on April 14, confirming Mitchell had been charged with Jodi’s murder and was to appear in court the next day.

Fiscal depute Caroline Mackay argued that proceedings were active because a petition warrant had been granted for Mitchell’s arrest on April 7, and he should not, therefore, have been named.

She said that people under 16 involved in court proceedings were protected by the court.

But Paul Cullen QC, for Aberdeen Journals, argued Mitchell, who was recently convicted, had not appeared in court when the article was published and the paper had not mentioned the warrant. He said that by naming Mitchell the paper had not broken the law.

The section which prevents newspapers from naming people under 16 begins with the words: “No newspaper report of any proceedings in a court shall reveal …” and Mr Cullen argued the P&J report did not breach the act as it was not a report of proceedings in court.

Sheriff Graham Buchanan said it had been known for a very long time that, when there was some doubt about the proper interpretation of the law, the accused would be given the benefit of the doubt.

He said: “What appeared in the newspaper on the 15th of April was simply not a report of any proceedings in a court.”

Speaking after the case, Press and Journal editor Derek Tucker said: “Not only do we not breach the law, but we do not breach the spirit of the law.

“The wording of this particular section is so precise that we thought it inconceivable that it was considered to have broken the law.

“Clearly, as Mr Cullen pointed out, the fiscal had confused the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act with the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act”.