The newspaper was accused of publishing an article in breach of reporting restrictions imposed under section 33. The court now asked whether the appellant, the newspaper editor, was for these purposes, the publisher and at risk of criminal responsibility.
Held: He did not fall outside the class covered by the phrase ‘any person who publishes’ for the offence of publishing information likely to lead to the identification of a child witness or victim in criminal proceedings, under section 39(2).
Bean LJ, William Davis, Warby JJ
[2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 184
Bailii, WLRD
Children & Young Persons Act 1933 39
Citing:
Cited – Dickenson v Fletcher 1873
A penal statute should receive a strict or restrictive interpretation. Brett J said: ‘Those who contend that a penalty may be inflicted must show that the words of the Act distinctly enact that it shall be incurred under the present circumstances. . .
Cited – JC and Another v The Central Criminal Court QBD 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked whether an order made under s. 39 of the 1933 Act, prohibiting the identification of (among others) a defendant under the age of 18 years, can last indefinitely or whether it automatically expires when that person attains the age . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Contempt of Court
Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545928
