A regional daily successfully fought to lift murder trial reporting restrictions that had become “redundant” due to others discussing the case on Twitter.

Oxford Mail crime and court reporter Tom Seaward has revealed he was barred from reporting that three defendants, who have subsequently been found guilty of murder, had been bailed due to the barrister strike causing a delay to their trial date.

The order, made by a judge at Oxford Crown Court, sparked a legal fight involving both the Mail and The Times, even though the issue they were barred from reporting was being widely discussed on social media at the time it was made.

The judge finally relented the following month and Tom, pictured, has now revealed for the first time the details of the battle for transparency in his regular crime and court newsletter for the Mail.

How the Mail covered the guilty verdicts

The trial in question has now concluded after Mark Meadows was found guilty, along with his half-brother Travis Gorton, of the murder of Keith Green in Banbury.

Meadows’s lover and Mr Green’s ex-partner Louise Grieve was also convicted of manslaughter, along with a youth who cannot be identified for legal reasons.

The restrictions had been put in place on 20 September after Judge Ian Pringle KC had refused to extend the defendants’ custody time limits, the amount of time they could legally be held on remand awaiting trial.

But at the hearing, the judge imposed a postponement order under section 4(2) the Contempt of Court Act 1981 barring the press from reporting that day’s proceedings.

Explaining what happened next, Tom wrote in the newsletter: “Overnight, that order became somewhat redundant as a series of high profile anonymous Twitter accounts – including the Secret Barrister – posted online about the judge’s decision.

“So we came back to court the next day, when lawyers for the youth argued that if the postponement order was lifted it would risk identifying her. Others suggested it could prejudice the jury if they were to know that their clients had at one time been in custody.

“My counter-argument was that the youth was already protected by reporting restrictions (these ones under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) and there had been no suggestion that she had been identified.

“The ‘substantial risk of serious prejudice’ that justified a s4(2) order had not been met. And in any event the jury should be trusted to follow a judge’s direction that they mustn’t look up publicity about the case.

“Notwithstanding the arguments on behalf of the paper, the judge extended the postponement order until at least the start of the trial.

“That order meant we couldn’t report the names of the accuseds or their bail conditions but we could report that the CTL extension application had been refused and we could name and identify the victim, which arguably made the order redundant.

“The Times of London got involved and instructed a barrister of their own, Jude Bunting KC of human rights chambers Doughty Street.

“And so back to court we went at the start of October, when the judge accepted the arguments on behalf of the press and lifted the postponement order.”