Recently updated guidance for courts and journalists on reporting restrictions in criminal cases is notable for its media-friendly tone and up-to-date case law.

The joint publication, issued by the Judicial Studies Board, Newspaper Society, Society of Editors and Times Newspapers Ltd, refreshes guidance first published in 2000, in a drive to ensure gagging orders are better understood and only lawfully used.

Whereas previous guidance dealt with Crown and Magistrates’ Courts separately, the new set covers all criminal courts in a unified edition. A checklist will be included in the Magistrates’ Courts Bench Book.

The new guidance owes its clarity to input from a barrister, Guy Vassall-Adams, who has cited the latest case law, statutes and government circulars in extensive footnotes. It is legally authoritative without being complicated, and cleverly adopts key phrases from leading cases in the explanatory text.

It deals with the well-known restrictions in depth, such as Section 39 Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), and Section 4(2) and Section 11 Contempt of Court Act (CCA), but covers the more obscure ones, too.

The rules are made plain, so there is now no excuse for any court that tries to impose, for example, an invalid Section 39 CYPA order in respect of a dead child or a child who is not concerned in the proceedings in the required way.

The guidance is particularly illuminating on Section 11 CCA, which is one of the more difficult restrictions to fathom, and explains the limits of the court’s power under this section.

The part about reporting Asbo cases is clear and detailed, with a summary of the tricky interplay between anonymity and open reporting in respect of youths who are involved in criminal proceedings that are immediately followed by civil Asbo proceedings.

The difference between ‘in private’, ‘in camera’ and ‘in chambers’ is also explained. The most refreshing aspect, however, is that the guidance appears sympathetic to the media’s perspective.

It repeatedly states that the media should be given an opportunity to make representations, either through reporters or legal representatives, and that restrictions must only be imposed where strictly necessary and proportionate, having regard to open justice.

Take this excerpt, for example: “The imposition of a reporting restriction directly engages the media’s interests, affecting their ability to report on matters of public interest.

“For this reason it is important that wherever possible the media should be given an opportunity to make representations to the court about proposed reporting restrictions before they are made, or, if the court is persuaded that there is an urgent need for at least a temporary restraint, as soon as practicable after they have been made.

“The media bring a different perspective to that of the parties to the proceedings. They have a particular expertise in reporting restrictions and are well placed to represent the wider public interest in open justice on behalf of the general public.”

And consider the co-operative spirit of this: “Once orders have been made, they should be drawn to the attention of the media by being shown on the court list and on the door of the court and wherever possible sent to relevant local and/or national media organisations.”

Reporting restrictions sent to local media? Cor, blimey.

Perhaps the press should not hold its breath on that happening immediately in every case, but at least the guidance confirms the aspiration that HM Courts Service should now be providing local newspapers with court lists by email free of charge, and that these should contain “the details of any reporting restrictions when they are first made”.

The new guidance is a must-read for all court reporters and editors, and provides potent ammunition for challenging restrictions. It will be freely available on jsboard.co.uk, newspapersoc.org.uk and societyofeditors.co.uk.