McKerry v Teesdale and Wear Valley Justices; McKerry v Director of Public Prosecutions: CA 29 Feb 2000

The courts must recognise the need to protect the identity of children involved in criminal proceedings. This derived both from national statute and from international law and practice. Nevertheless, the court had the discretion in appropriate cases to order disclosure of the name of a child convicted before it of criminal charges where the public interest properly required this. As to the giving of reasons for their decision by magistrates: ‘It is not usual for magistrates to give detailed reasons; nor is it usual for juries, who make very important decisions affecting human rights, to give any reasons at all. If an aggrieved party wishes to obtain more detailed reasons from a magistrates’ court, then a request can be made to state a case, as was done here, and the justices have given their reasons at somewhat greater length.’


Lord Bingham


Gazette 16-Mar-2000, Times 29-Feb-2000, [2001] EMLR 5


Children and Young Persons Act 1933 49(4A)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMathialagan, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark and Another CA 13-Dec-2004
Liability Orders were made against the appellant in respect of non-domestic rates in respect of two properties. The orders were made in the absence of the appellant or any representative. Application for judicial review was made to re-open the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Criminal Practice, Media

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.83553