An editorial boss has warned the placing of restrictions protecting criminals in court has now reached an “unprecedented” level – while claiming coronavirus is also being used as an excuse to bar his reporters from hearings.

Jon Harris, who runs Manchester-based news agency Cavendish Press, so many Section 11 orders are being imposed at cases his reporters are covering that challenging them would be a “complete waste of time and money”.

Jon, pictured, has also raised other court access issues affecting his journalists and says his staff have been repeatedly barred from courtrooms by staff citing Covid-19.

Section 11 of Contempt of Court Act 1981 gives courts the power to ban the media from publishing a particular detail – most commonly a defendant’s name or address – in reports of the proceedings.

But Jon says his journalists have been barred from reporting the addresses of various defendants in cases such as outraging public decency and revenge porn after defence lawyers claimed clients’ lives would be “put at risk”.

When one of his reporters tried to challenge one of the court orders, she was told her application could only be made to the court several days after the defendant had been sentenced and after the case had been publicised.

Magistrates also imposed a similar Section 11 on a teacher being sentenced for causing a death by careless driving – then refused to give their full names to the press, according to Jon.

Jon said: “I actually believe the number of Section 11 orders being imposed at Tameside Magistrates Court barring publication of defendants’ addresses has become unprecedented. I have no idea why they have become so commonplace in recent months.

“We did actually challenge one of them by letter on the day of sentencing but our application was refused to be heard by the clerk and we were told to come back another day following sentencing.

“Despite the application being purely academic we did attend anyway at 10am as requested by the court – only to find neither defence or prosecution in the case were present.

“We were then told our application would only be heard after they were contacted and the case was promptly listed at the end of the day – after three separate trials in the same courtroom.

“We gave it up at lunchtime to do something else and I’ve since scrapped out plans to apply for restrictions to be lifted on all the other Section 11 cases as I believe they will be a complete waste of time and money too.”

Other examples of his reporters’ access being curtailed include ushers prohibiting them from listening to hearings and other court staff saying there was “no room” inside due to the virus.

In one case a reporter was barred from covering the sentencing of a stabbing case involving four defendants after the case was booked into one of the smallest courtrooms in the building.

In another case at a local magistrates court, only two seats were made available in the public gallery – and a journalist had to make way for a trainee lawyer who was observing a racially aggravated harassment hearing in Stockport.

The incidents come a year after the HMCTS joined forces with the Society of Editors for a series of round table meetings across the UK as part of a wider effort to encourage media access to court proceedings.

Jon, who attended the Manchester round table meeting, said: “I’m afraid I’ve lost count of the number of times our reporters have had to protest and stamp their feet simply to get access to the court.

“In the majority of cases we’ve eventually been allowed in – but only after we’ve had to be unnecessarily assertive about it.

“We know Covid is a challenge for the court staff – but Covid is a challenge for everyone and it doesn’t mean that what should naturally follow is a nation of secret courts.

“The fact is HMCTS guidance quite clearly states the media are entitled by law to hear and be present at all open court proceedings and sadly this is not happening.

“At the round table meeting in Manchester last year we all welcomed the guidance from the HMCTS but we warned it would be next to useless, unless that guidance filtered through to those on the court frontline who needed to know about it.

“To be fair during the first UK lockdown, crown court staff in Manchester and Bolton were actually very helpful in providing Skype and CVP links so journalists could remote into hearings. Moreover judges, and barristers on several occasions provided copies of their remarks if for any reason we could not be accommodated in the courtroom on the links failed.

“But unfortunately in recent months since the first lockdown eased, supposed transparency – particularly at the magistrates courts – has now become somewhat foggy and I fear it will only get worse now we face Lockdown 2.0.”

Jon has now called on HMCTS to “double down” on its efforts to make courts more transparent for visiting journalists.

He added: “I appreciate we are going through unprecedented times with the pandemic but it seems media access was missed off the memo when it came to court staff being asked to compile Covid risk assessments.

“That needs to be altered now to stop reporters being prevented from going about their daily tasks.

“In fact given the changes in the law on Covid-19 and prosecutions for breaches of those laws, it is more imperative than ever that the public knows what is going on in our courts.”

A HMCTS spokesman said: “Open justice is a key feature of our legal system and we’ve worked hard to ensure media access in these extraordinary times.

“Working closely with journalists we have also issued new guidance to court staff on how to help during the pandemic, and set up a national helpline to directly access support if needed.

“Keeping the justice system running while keeping people safe is our priority and we will continue to take measures necessary to incorporate the media.”