AddThis SmartLayers

Daily wins right to name and shame drunk mum

The Worcester News has won the right to name a drunken mother who kicked her toddler son down a flight of concrete steps after challenging a court order.

Solicitors acting for Kate Edwards, from Malvern, asked for a Section 39 order to be imposed, banning identification of her two-year-old son Alfie.

News reporter James Connell argued in court that such an order would make reporting the case difficult as mother and child would not be able to be linked.

He also referred to previous such cases in which it has been successfully argued that children of Alfie’s age are too young to be affected by publicity.

Magistrates agreed not to impose the order, stating: “The press should be allowed to do their work unimpeded. It is important that these cases do get publicity.”

Worcester News editor Kevin Ward said: “It can be daunting for reporters to stand up in court and challenge orders such as these.

“James did extremely well and I’m pleased the magistrates understood that, in this case, a Section 39 order would have protected the defendant rather than the victim.

“I am surprised defence solicitors still think they can get away with asking for such orders to be imposed.”

Edwards, 24, pleaded guilty to child cruelty after CCTV cameras captured her actions. She will be sentenced in January.

Relatives are now caring for her son, who suffered a number of minor injuries.

Comments

Laura (15/12/2008 10:27:26)
Common sense – in a Courtroom? – impressive!
Can we now have similar common sense in the Family Courts?
Lying and cheating has children removed from loving parents, in the privacy of their protected Court.
Barristers and solicitors, social workers and cafcass officers, are totally unregulated in their lies and inaccuracies in such Courts. They have no reputation which can be lost, since all their dirty work takes place behind closed doors – and parents are not allowed to speak about it.
This disgraceful secret system is designed to protect their backs -and it does a wonderful job. The incompetent, the inaccurate and the downright inhuman, are allowed to ruin the entire future of an innocent child, with no comeback.
Why should our children be subjected to a totalitarian state|? I thought that they had the right to be treated well?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (15/12/2008 12:04:13)
Why did a drunken mum kick her son down a flight of steps after challenging a court order?