Journalists have overturned an anonymity order preventing them naming a couple who took their four-month-old son when they went on a seven-hour drinking spree.

Under Section 39 of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act, magistrates at Mansfield last month had banned publication of details which could identify the baby.

But when they convened again last week both the Mansfield Chad and Press Association successfully challenged the order, reports Media Lawyer.

The journalists argued it only served to protect the parents, Mark and Petra Tyler, from publicity. The couple had previously admitted being drunk in charge of a child under the age of seven.

PA reporter Theo Usherwood drew the court’s attention to guidance on use of Section 39, issued by the Judicial Studies Board.

The guide says: “Age alone is insufficient to justify the order. Courts have accepted that very young children cannot be harmed by publicity of which they will be unaware and therefore Section 39 orders are unnecessary.”

Theo told the court the order only served to make the couple anonymous, was not in the interests of open justice, and that the baby, Callum, could not be affected by publicity as he was only seven-months-old.

Michael Little, defending, said the Tylers could be in danger of reprisals which would also put the child at risk.

Chair of the bench Ron Foster said: “The bench have considered very carefully the requirements of the order but we do not believe that by lifting the order we will cause an undue risk to the child’s welfare.”

The court heard that the Mansfield couple were spotted by a concerned landlord towards the end of a seven-hour bender in September.

The landlord asked the couple, who he said were “heavily in drink”, to leave his pub as he did not allow children in on weekday evenings, and called CCTV operators to check on the child when they went.

Mr Little told the court the couple had had “ongoing battles” with alcoholism and had taken steps to deal with their problems. The case was adjourned to December 30.