A regional daily has been rapped after breaching reporting restrictions by naming a child accomplice to a crime.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld a complaint against the Lancashire Post after it identified the 15-year-old in a court round-up.

The Post, which did not have a journalist present in court to cover the case, had relied on a court register which had listed the child as an accomplice and did not refer to any reporting restrictions in place.

However, it was found the restrictions had been published in a separate area of the register and IPSO sided with the boy’s family on the issue following a complaint and subsequent investigation.

The story in which the boy’s name appeared was a round-up of people who had been convicted at Preston Magistrates Court, pictured, and described him as an accomplice to someone else’s crime.

It had appeared online only and was removed two days later.

Complaining under Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice, the boy’s mother said court reporting restrictions had been in place banning publication of her son’s name.

She added this had caused significant distress to her son and her wider family, adding that identifying him would mean that his peers would be aware of his crime which could lead to further social isolation and harassment.

Denying any breach of Code, the Post said the court register which had listed the child as an accomplice did not refer to any reporting restrictions in place and said this error had been confirmed by the court in both a telephone conversation and an email.

However, it was found that the child’s age and press restriction indicated in relation to the charges against him were available on a different page of the register.

The Preston-based Post acknowledged this but said the crime in relation to which the child was identified as an accomplice was listed on page six of a 238-page document, while the entry relating to the charges against him and the reporting restriction appeared on page 19.

The Post added the reporter usually searched the registers by specific location but did not usually search the area the boy was from, so therefore had missed the section which made his age and reporting restriction clear.

IPSO recognised that the court register was a large document and that no reporting restriction had been indicated in the entry relating to the charges that were the subject of the story.

While the Committee understood the Post’s position that it had only reported on certain areas within the listed report and therefore had not seen this detail, it did access to this information at the time of publication.

IPSO noted that an important process of identifying the correct person when court reporting is including their age and street level address, and that obtaining this information would have helped the publication to avoid naming a child under the age of 18.

In this instance, the existence of a reporting restriction meant that the child had a reasonable expectation that the material – which related to a crime he was accomplice to – would not be published to the wider public.

It further considered that revealing his identity in relation to a crime he had been an accomplice to would have impacted his time at school.

The complaint was upheld and the Post was ordered to publish the adjudication by way of remedial action.

The full adjudication can be read here.