A regional daily has won the right to name a newborn baby who died after being stabbed at his home.
A judge agreed with Newcastle daily The Chronicle’s bid to name three-week-old Andrei Stefan, who had been protected by a court order as he fought for life in hospital.
District Judge Bernard Begley sided with an application to lift the Section 45 order following the boy’s death after hearing the restriction had made it difficult to keep the public informed of what was happening in the case.
Baby Andrei died in hospital four days after the alleged attack at an address in Portland Close, Wallsend, on 2 October.
North Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, pictured, heard Andrei had been christened in hospital before his death, while his mother Andreea Stefan, 21, is recovering after being seriously injured during the incident.
Lifting the order, Judge Begley said: “This is a very sad case. We are taking about a child who is deceased.”
Denis Beytula, the boy’s father, has been charged with murdering his baby son and trying to kill his partner.
Beytula, 27, made his first appearance at Newcastle Crown Court on Friday.
At that hearing, Judge Paul Sloan thanked the media for their responsible actions in seeking to clarify the reporting restrictions prior to the hearing.
HTFP has approached The Chronicle for a comment.
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I thought all YJCEA orders became null on the death of the subject, unless it would lead to identification of other minors or parties protected by other orders?
Report this comment
I thought the Bristow case, Warwick Crown Court 1973 makes it clear you cant have a court order on a dead child. I have had to explain that in court to a couple of senior judges over the years
Report this comment
the judge sided with the appeal “after hearing the restriction had made it difficult to keep the public informed of what was happening in the case.”
Surely the fact tha a S45 order can’t be put on a deceased person was more relevant.
Report this comment
If I remember correctly an invalid order is still an order until it is lifted. So even though the case law and, indeed, the law supports the paper, breaking an invalid order is still treated as breaking an order, and paper would have been in trouble as you can’t argue it is not valid.
If the order is in place it is legal in the eyes of the law until a judge lifts it.
Report this comment