A regional daily crime correspondent was barred from a court hearing after a judge deemed the defendant too “distressed”.
The Birmingham Mail’s Nick McCarthy was among a group of journalists refused access to Birmingham Youth Court, where a 16-year-old girl appeared accused of involvement in a street robbery which went viral on social media after it was filmed on a mobile phone.
Nick was blocked by an usher from entering the courtroom who informed him, along with reporters from the Press Association, Sky News and the SWNS agency, that District Judge Jack McGarva didn’t want them to enter “just yet”.
The usher said the judge knew nothing about the case and just wanted them to stay outside so that the background could be explained to him.
Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, which contains the Youth Court
The usher later walked out with the defendant when the journalists were about to try and enter the room, at which point they were told nothing had happened and they were to return on 14 September.
No order had been made by the judge and the reporters refused to leave court until they were given an explanation as to the legal grounds for their exclusion.
The judge admitted that he had adjourned the case and that he wanted the group outside because “the girl was distressed”.
He had also been told that legal papers were not ready and the case would be adjourned, with the girl granted unconditional bail.
Prosecutors allege the girl was involved in a robbery in Birmingham on 11 July, which has since been viewed millions of times on social media.
It is understood that no plea was taken during the hearing on Friday, which is thought to have lasted for around five minutes.
The Mail has declined to comment further on the issue.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
disgraceful
Report this comment
Inexcusable.
Report this comment
Oh dear. Not good. So if you’re a suspect/defendant appearing in court and you don’t want the media there you now know what to do! Just behave in a distressed manner and the judge and usher will keep those pesky reporters at bay.
Report this comment
Justice seen to be done – unless you’re upset.
Report this comment
This is disgusting – a flagrant disregard for the law, let alone the principle of open justice.
Report this comment
Worth referring to the Lord Chancellor for court decision to be examined?
Report this comment
By all means seek an explanation on the legal aspects of the exclusion, but the defendant is a child in the eyes of the law and the Judge has to ensure any hearing is fair on all parties.
Report this comment
What about the victim??? Its a pity this 16yr old didnt think twice bout the victim and then this 16yr old wouldnt be distresses!! Systems a joke……
Report this comment
People feel bad for the victim, not the defendant!! What is this judge thinking???? Daft system
Report this comment
Completely wrong and I’d suggest a swift complaint to the Lord Chancellor’s dept would be in order.
I’ve been to many juvenile courts, as they were called in my day, and never been barred, no matter how ‘distressed’ the accused.
So if this young lady turns on the tears again, does this mean secrecy again? Needs to be nipped in the bud.
Report this comment
As the judge in the first Lord Janner hearing said, many people who enter court as defendants are distressed, doesn’t necessarily mean they warrant special treatment
Report this comment
What am I missing here, there were no court proceeding so nothing to report on? Presumably the judge knew he was going to adjourn so saw no need for any hulabalou.
Report this comment
Unless there are unknown unknowns in play here (Copyright D. Rumsfeld, apparently) then surely s47 of the CYPA 1933 applies? This gives bona fide journos the right to attend Youth Court.
Report this comment
Jeff, we only have the judges word for that.
There was a court proceeding, otherwise why was the defendant required to attend?
Report this comment
We often have problems with court officials in our part of the world where they seem to think letting us in is on their whim, a privilege if you will. They have often been downright obstructive when we ask for information too. I and colleagues have even been pointed out by officials at inquests as the press in waiting areas by officials which can be a tad awkward.
They should be told we have a right to be in court and a right to report what we choose.
In this case, for a judge to act in this way is shocking.
Report this comment
The magistrates responsible should resign immediately
Report this comment
Sorry, the judge should resign immediately!
Report this comment
On the slippery slope. Courts are supposed to be open to the public – hence public galleries – and reporters are there not just to represent the public but also ensure that justice is done properly.
Report this comment
I often had trouble with ushers who insisted reporters could not cover youth court. Even some court clerks were ignorant about it.
Better training needed, maybe even for judiciary?
Report this comment
Rachel Knight, in particular, and Melissa present the EXACT argument why the courts often act in this way. There may be mitigating circumstances around this girl’s involvement and she might NOT be guilty of what she is being accused.
Their comments show a careless attitude towards the legal system which is so frequently shared by readers.
When dealing with children, I think we have to give judges some respect around these issues. After all, it is their court room!
Anyone with an ounce of sense or knowledge about youth court knows that ‘being too distressed’ is a fob-off. However, mitigating factors when dealing with children are often things which cannot be discussed in public. It’s called safeguarding!
Report this comment
Desker, proceedings hadn’t commenced if I’m reading it right? At this stage it was just a kid sat in a room crying.
Report this comment