A reporter from The Argus, Brighton, successfully challenged a court order banning the publication of defendants’ addresses in a trial.

He was spoken to by the Judge in chambers – and argued his case based on past examples.

Four men are currently on trial at Hove Crown Court for violent disorder following clashes with police and doormen outside a Brighton nightclub.

Coverage of the first two days of the trial in The Argus had included their full addresses and evidence that they were part of a group of men on a stag night which included doormen from the Crawley area.

A counsel for one of the defendants applied for a Section 11 order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, preventing publication of their full addresses.

He argued that, as they were ‘bouncers’, they or their families could be in danger of threats or violence from anyone who had ever objected to being thrown out of clubs by the defendants if their full addresses continued to be published.

Reporter Nigel Freedman challenged the order on the grounds that the full addresses had already been published, there had been no order in advance preventing publication and the press had a right to publish those details. By not doing so it ran the risk of libelling anyone with the same names as any of the defendants living in the same towns.

Judge Rennie dismissed the challenge and ordered that only the towns should be published in future reports.

After the court received a second challenge by letter from a weekly newspaper in Crawley, Judge Rennie asked to see reporter Nigel in chambers and said he was reconsidering his decision.

He asked Nigel to research case law and to provide authorities on previous challenges as his own research had resulted in very little which was helpful to the challenge.

Following Nigel’s challenge in court the judge lifted the order.

Back to the law index

Do you have a story about the regional press? Ring 0116 227 3122/3121, or
e-mail [email protected]