The deputy editor of a local newspaper has defended the title’s decision to name a 16-year-old who appeared in court accused of encouraging looting on a website.

The naming of Johny Melfah in the Worcester News made national news because it was thought to be the first time a defendant under 18 had been named before a plea had been entered in connection with the recent riots.

As first reported on HTFP, reporter Richard Vernalls had challenged the Section 39 order, aimed at protecting the identity of children, at Worcester Magistrates Court.

Deputy editor of the Worcester News, John Wilson appeared on BBC Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show on Thursday to explain why the paper had challenged the order.

Said John: “We take protection of youngsters very seriously at the Worcester News but it is such an important issue we felt it had to be challenged.

“I hope the lad can put this behind him and go on to live his life.

“But our over-riding thought was that are we doing the job on behalf of the public – and the law entitles us to do that.”

The youth had written on a website called Letz Start a Riot, encouraging people to steal and cause criminal damage during the riots, which he then linked to from his Facebook page.

The lifting of the ban on Tuesday is believed to be one of the first times a youth has been named before a plea was entered in relation to the riots.

Magistrates also lifted a separate automatic ban on naming the teenager when he appeared at youth court the day after his initial appearance.

Phillip Jenkins, deputy chairman of the South Worcestershire Bench and a youth court magistrate, told the programme that magistrates did not often lift the ban on reporting a youth’s identity, but there was a clear procedure.

“Everybody will have been given a chance to make representations, the legal adviser will have given their advice and then the magistrates can make a decision,” he said.

“Magistrates can rely on three reasons to lift the restrictions and in this case, the only one I could see them using was to lift in the public interest.

“It would not be appropriate for me to go behind the magistrates’ decision, but they will have made their decision based on what was before them and the representations made.”