A judge has rejected claims that a regional daily erred by publishing the names of two 16-year-olds accused of causing grievous bodily harm.

The Oxford Mail published the names of the youths after they made their first appearance at Oxford Crown Court three weeks ago.

But Macnab Clarke, a firm of solicitors representing one of the youths then wrote to the court claiming the paper had contravened a Section 39 order made in the magistrates’ court banning identification of the defendants.

In its defence the paper cited a 20-year-old Court of Appeal ruling that section 39 orders must be renewed if defendants under the age of 18 are committed to the Crown Court from a lower court.

After calling the case back into court last week, Judge Ian Pringle accepted the newspaper’s argument.

Both he and the Crown Prosecutor agreed there was no order in force to breach – but solicitor Abigail Bright, for one of the youths, continued to claim that the newspaper had broken the law, and to argue that the 1993 Court of Appeal decision held no force.

Oxford Mail head of content Jason Collie, who represented the newspaper at the hearing, said: “The argument put forward by Miss Bright was flawed and it is disappointing public money had to be wasted defending what was clearly a nonsense.

“It is deeply frustrating and time-consuming to have to continue to fight an argument from a lawyers’ firm and a barrister who it would appear thought they were more of an authority than a Court of Appeal ruling and guidelines backed by the Lord Chief Justice.”

“We guard our reputation jealously on media law and Macnab Clarke was wrong, was shown it was downright wrong yet carried on.

“Solicitors and barristers thinking they can just railroad ‘lowly’ hacks should be fought at every turn, especially if they feel emboldened by the Leveson effect.”