A weekly newspaper editor has vowed to fight prosecution after naming a youth defendant in a court report in which legal restrictions protecting his identity were in place.
Thomas Sinclair, left, who edits the Pembrokeshire Herald, says he is due to appear at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court on 8 September after naming the teenager in his newspaper in February.
Thomas could be fined up to £5,000 for the alleged offence, which occurred in April of this year.
But he told HTFP that in his view there would be “no public interest” in prosecuting him over the matter.
The Herald named the defendant in a case being prosecuted by Milford Haven Port Authority, taking details from a press release sent out by the same organisation which did not name the youth.
The newspaper did not have a reporter in court for the hearing, but printed quotes from the defendant after interviewing him following the hearing.
Thomas, 37, told HTFP that in his opinion the youth’s identity doesn’t need protecting as he is well known in the area already, and that he also knows him personally.
He added: “Everybody knew who he was anyway, so it’d be a bit ridiculous not to name him.”
According to a report on Thomas’s court summons in the Herald, the naming of the youth was contrary to Section 49(9) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
He further claims the police did not send him a court summons within the statutory time limit.
Thomas said: “Both the summons and a note changing the date and venue of the initial hearing from 6 September at Haverfordwest court to 8 September at Llanelli court are date stamped 9 August – I have no idea why a policeman hand delivered the documents some two weeks later.
“Usually court documents are posted, not delivered by a uniformed officer. I will be raising my concerns with the magistrates in Llanelli on the day of the hearing.”
Thomas is being prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and says it came after a complaint by the clerk at Haverford Magistrates’ Court.
Speaking to HTFP, he added: “I don’t feel there is any public interest in this case. What is the actual point? [The defendant]’s father didn’t want me prosecuted.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
What about inevitable discovery? When it comes to jigsaw identification, this really had only two pieces! The accused was in the national news not long before this incident and had a pretty distinguishing fact about him which was not obscured in the press release referred to in the article above. Very odd.
Report this comment
I’m struggling to understand how this editor actually believes he is in the right. He’s named a juvenile – and that’s against the law.
Report this comment
This is genuinely astounding, and I fear has more to do with the decline of the industry than any kind of moral stand.
First off, it’s the law, newspapers shouldn’t break the law, they can fight it by all means, but not break it. There was always a grudging respect between the law and the press, they needed each other even if they didn’t alway agree – doing something like this only harms the press’s reputation.
Also, I’ve heard many good and bad public interest arguments in the past for naming youths – usually that the crime was so bad or that there was some kind of danger to the public by not naming the offender, but the excuse that ‘I know him and his dad didn’t mind’ surely isn’t one of them.
This all smack of extreme amateur hour I’m afraid and I’ll shed no tears if the Hedlu make this guy do the perp walk.
Report this comment
I think Mr Sinclair had better check his piggy bank.
Report this comment
The editor should have gone to court to challenge the ruling. Not easy as have been through it myself. Just to say words to the effect that “I know his dad” doesn’t cut ice. Some of these rulings are nonsensical but if an editor breaks the law how can he publish stories/comment condemning others who do.
Report this comment
He is also being arrogant in stating there is no public interest in the case against him. Of course there is. No journalist – whatever his/her position – is above the law and I reckon more than a few people will be interested to know how he comes out if it. The law sometimes can be an ass but it comes down to one law for all. Not one for “the public” and another for editors.
Report this comment
If in doubt, brazen it out.
Report this comment
One of the best newspaper start-up groups of recent years and regularly on my radar for its fearless coverage of south Wales councils..
However, on this occasion Thomas has got it wrong. By all means challenge legal restrictions, and he’d have had a good point if the lad was well known in the area, but he’ll need to take his cheque book with him on September 8.
Report this comment
Sorry, editor, but you are in a world of wrong here.
If I were you I definitely would not take that “everyone knows who he is anyway” attitude into court, although it is probably already too late now.
Report this comment
Hmmm, a cursory glance at Thomas’s Linkedin profile reveals he owns a printing company and before that was a Dixons store manager. Maybe he’s had some kind of training I don’t know, but I think it’s probably important that journalists have a grounding and get the odd ticking off from editors before they eventually take the helm themselves. Editors aren’t born, they’re a concoction of dozens of death knocks, hundreds of hours in court, the occasional brawl and some medium quality, very affordable scotch.
Report this comment
Fingers crossed he gets the full £5k fine. An arrogant and stupid action followed by equally stupid comments with zero defence. An editor? Really?
Report this comment
He has no chance of winning this. “I know his dad”, “everyone knows him” yeah that may be but the courts still imposed the order.
Challenge it in court you fool.
Report this comment
‘The newspaper did not have a reporter in court for the hearing, but printed quotes from the defendant after interviewing him following the hearing’
I do wonder if they would have thought slightly more deeply about the legal implications of naming him if they had been in court in the first place rather than picking the information up from a press release. They may have been in a better position to challenge reporting restrictions if they had.
From googling the details of this story I can see why the editor believed the defendant’s identity was already in the public domain. But, alas, the law exists and you can see the mess Thomas has got himself into for not complying with it.
Report this comment
I must remember that defence if I ever end up before a judge. “Oh, yes I stabbed him m’lud but his dad said it was all right.” This editor would be well advised to have another think about what he is doing. Never heard such a daft argument/defence put forward.
Report this comment
Of course, the USA has a far healthier approach to such matters. We need a First Amendment in the UK.
http://panewsmedia.org/legal/publications/newspaperhandbook/juvenile-news-reporting#Juvenile
Report this comment
Reading a little bit about this ‘newspaper’ I’m now less shocked than I was. In fact I’m not surprised in the slightest.
I’m a big supporter of new newspapers starting up but it’s probably best if they’re staffed by journalists.
Report this comment
Harry, I think untrained journalists should definitely – definitely – swerve court stories.
Report this comment
I think there’s a wider issue at play here too, and that’s how much the training and skills of professional journalists have been devalued in recent years.
Anyone who sits down and writes seems to think they’re a journalist, but they’re no more a journalist than me putting my arm up a cow’s backside makes me a country vet.
Legal knowledge, news judgment, impartiality are all crucial components of a trained journalist and these traits are sadly no longer valued, and you see the results everywhere.
Report this comment
Geoff, I assumed you’d want to keep quiet about that incident between you and that attractive Hereford with the fetching eyes.
Joking aside, you’ve just hit the nail right on the head. Again. Top man.
Report this comment
I think we have all written up court cases where a disgusting little rat deserved to be named. But the law is the law. I think this gent needs a refresher.
Report this comment
An incredibly dumb and ludicrous bluff on his part.
He should just grovel and throw himself at the court’s mercy. Insanity might do it!
Report this comment