A weekly newspaper has been fined £750 after pleading guilty to breaching a Section 39 order banning the identification of a child.
Last week HTFP reported that the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped a charge of contempt of court against North Devon Journal editor Lisa Templeton, who had been due to appear before Taunton Magistrates yesterday.
However the CPS went ahead with a separate charge against the paper, which it subsequently admitted.
The case was heard by Taunton magistrates yesterday. Devon weeklies publisher Michelle Pugh attended court on behalf of the paper and the guilty plea was tabled by its legal representatives.
A Section 39 order is a discretionary order made under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 that prevents reporting of details that would identify a child under 18 involved in a court case
Mark Sainsbury, managing director of Devon & Cornwall Media which publishes the Journal said: “This was a one-off incident which arose through human error.
“We have admitted to our mistake and the editor has implemented a series of measures to make sure this never happens again.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Be good to know what the story was and how the error arose?
For example, if it was pure lazy not checking, then fair enough and the reporter should be thoroughly disciplined.
However, I’ve checked with a court clerk AND prosecution before and had a no… when it should have been a yes. Luckily, the judge accepted the error of the court in that case and it went no further.
Report this comment
Lest we forget, the owner of the North Devon Journal is one D. Montgomery. The last time I listened to his treatises and those of his (one-time) journalist acolytes, “the future” involved anyone and everyone being able to contribute material to the company’s newspapers and websites, unfettered by anything so distasteful as journalistic editing or amendment.
So, if this is what happens before their “future” vision for publishing is really with us, what can we expect post revolution? Busier magistrates, that’s for sure…
Report this comment
Every week, in print and online, readers of the Journal are treated to what I have come to term ‘The Stocks’, a spread of mainly low rent magistrates’ court cases, often accompanied by rather bleak snatch pix of some poor misfortunate as they shuffle from court.
Will the Journal be featuring this somewhat more important court case this week alongside a snatch pic of company spokesman Mr Sainsbury?
I think we should be told, Madam Editor….
Report this comment
Not just disciplined, note, but thoroughly disciplined. This is a euphemism for hung, drawn, and quartered.
No-one else must share one iota of responsibility.
Report this comment
Don’t worry The Daily Mess: I am sure there will be a full and detailed report of the case on the NDJ’s excellent Around The Courts pages this week…
Report this comment
‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone.’
As The Daily Mess says, we do not know the full story here.
Report this comment
Bitter and Twisted: That should hanged, drawn and quartered. Pictures are hung, people are hanged…
Report this comment
£750 – not much of a deterrent, is it?
Report this comment
Reply to Paul Webb:
Sorry Paul, I but I really mean HUNG drawn and quartered. This is so that the reporter can be suspended to the point of death before he or she is taken down for the rest of the punishment. It’s an important distinction which is why I use the vernacular. If the reporter is merely hanged, that person will escape the main part. The sentence will not have been carried out and justice would not be done.
Now, you wouldn’t want that, would you, Paul?
(Ps I don’t care what google says).
Report this comment
Is Snap Attack a journalist? If so, is he really criticising the North Devon Journal for its coverage of magistrates (and higher) courts?
Covering courts should be a cornerstone of any local paper’s content. I hope the fact that on this occasion the Journal was in error will not deter the editor from continuing to report the courts.
As a regular reader of the NDJ I know that a substantial proportion of the ‘poor misfortunates’ mentioned in Snap Attack’s post have been convicted of assaults, fraud and other nasty crimes.
At a time when too many newspapers have turned their backs on reporting hard news stories, from the courts, local councils and off-diary, the Journal is in general terms to be congratulated on its coverage.
Human error is something most of us have been guilty of during our careers. Court reporting has never been easy and I suspect it has become more complex in recent years.
The newspaper has been duly punished. Hopefully it will learn from the mistake and continue to report real news rather than simply re-write press releases like some other titles.
Report this comment