The High Court has confirmed that Section 39 orders protecting the anonymity of children involved in court proceedings end once they turn 18.

Sitting in his capacity as president of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson said the identities of under 18s – both offenders and victims – were not protected when they became adults.

However the ruling may now lead to legislation to close what Sir Brian referred to as a “lacuna in the law.”

Judges called for Parliament to plug the loophole by providing “individual and tailor-made protection” for child victims and witnesses in criminal trials who are currently denied the right to anonymity after 18.

The victims of female genital mutilation, a subject currently receiving wide publicity, were among those in need of protection “as a matter of real urgency”, judges said.

Sir Brian’s comments came in a judgment in a case involving two individuals, referred to as JC and RT, who pleaded guilty to possession of explosive substances when they were under 18.

Lawyers for both defendants, who were given anonymity under section 39 of the 1993 Children and Young Persons Act, argued that the effect of the section 39 orders was that they were in fact being given life-long anonymity to aid their rehabilitation.

Yesterday their claim, in the first of its kind, was rejected by the Divisional Court in London. But the pair still cannot be identified pending a possible appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Sir Brian, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston and Mr Justice Holroyde, ruled that “an order made by any court under section 39 cannot extend to reports of the proceedings after the subject of the order has reached the age of majority at 18″.

He said: “I do not accept that the true purpose behind the 1933 Act was to aid the rehabilitation of young offenders, allowing them ‘to leave their pasts behind them’.”

But the case went beyond defendants and also had “wide implications for victims, witnesses and others concerned in proceedings” who also did not receive any protection for their identities after they reached the age of 18.

Sir Brian said he recognised that, compared with previous generations, there was now a far greater risk of identifying material being available in newspaper archives online, and online records of social media.

He said:  “The statutory scheme for the protection of children and young persons contained within section 39 simply does not seek to address the different issues that arise.

“Victims and witnesses need individual and tailor-made protection within the criminal justice system: an example of such a need relates to the victims of female genital mutilation, recently the subject of calls for anonymity.

“In my judgment, it would be wrong to seek to create a solution out of legislation that was simply not designed to have regard to what is now understood of their needs and to the primacy attached to their legitimate interests.

“Therefore, it is for Parliament to fashion a solution: the problem requires to be addressed as a matter of real urgency.”