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 of 18 years.
Held: A section 39 order expires when the young person turns 18,and could not be used to protect a young person thereafter.
Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Cranston, Holroyde JJ
[2014] EWHC 1041 (QB), [2014] 1 WLR 3697, [2014] 2 FCR 571, [2014] 4 All ER 319, [2014] WLR(D) 166, [2014] Crim LR 902, (2014) 178 JP 188, [2014] 2 Cr App R 13, [2014] EMLR 20, [2014] EWHC 1041 (Admin)
Bailii, WLRD
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .
Cited – Aitken v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Apr-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Criminal Practice, Children
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523596
