AddThis SmartLayers

Reporter overturns drug dealer name gag after challenging judge

A regional daily journalist successfully overturned a gagging order protecting a drug dealer after standing up unannounced before a crown court judge to challenge the ban.

Derby Telegraph court reporter Martin Naylor succeeded in getting a Section 45 restriction lifted, allowing him to name Dijon Brown.

Brown was 17 at the time of the offence, but Martin urged Judge Jonathan Bennett to lift the order.

Rising unannounced to address the judge at Derby Crown Court, pictured, Martin argued it was in the interest of “open justice” that Brown’s name be published.

Martin told HTFP: “The S45 reporting restriction was still in place when Brown was sentenced this week at Derby Crown Court. Seeing that it was there on the court list I waited for his defence barrister to complete his mitigation.

“I then stood up, apologised to Judge Jonathan Bennett for rising and asked if the S45 could now be lifted seeing as Brown had moved from being a juvenile to being an adult. I argued that is was in the interest of open justice that his name be published.”

Brown’s defence barrister countered that Brown had been moved to a new address which, and that his client could be put in danger if this was published.

Martin added: “After he made this point I again stood up and told the judge that the address Brown had given to the court was his old address and this would be the one I would publish. The judge agreed that so long as his new address was not published the reporting restriction could be lifted.

“As someone who does not regularly need to challenge orders such as this it is rewarding to see this one overturned. I have challenged orders before on a number of occasions but have rarely won.”

3 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • September 17, 2018 at 11:05 am
    Permalink

    Fun fact: Dijon Brown changed his name by deed poll in 2016 so that it would be the same as his favourite variety of mustard.*

    *may not be true

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • September 18, 2018 at 8:54 am
    Permalink

    I don’t want to discourage this sort of challenge, but if the defendant has turned 18 then the S45 order is no longer in force. There is an argument it only lapses upon sentence in a case where the defendant achieves majority during proceedings, so the order may have been lifted solely for the few minutes it took the judge to hand down sentence. As such the idea that a defendant’s address should be withheld is worrying. A man’s address is as much a part of his identity as his name. I’m sure there authority on that. But it certainly can’t be withheld under the s45 order imposed as it is a nullity. The lack of knowledge on this from judges and advocates is worrying. They too often see the press (who at the risk of sounding pompous are representing the public) as a hindrance to their work.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)