Y, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court & Ors

When deciding whether to impose, vary or discharge a reporting restriction under Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the court must balance the welfare of the child or young person against the public interest in open justice, deterrence and reporting, together with the requirements of article 10 ECHR. The party seeking the restriction must establish a good reason for it. After conviction, the offender’s age and the seriousness of the offence are particularly important. If the competing factors are very evenly balanced, the court should restrict publication. Adequate reasons and the proper balancing exercise are required.

The claimant was aged 16 when he pleaded guilty to simple arson and received an eight-month detention and training order. A Crown Court order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 had restricted publication of details identifying him.

Following an application by Newsquest Media Group Ltd, supported by Thames Valley Police, the Crown Court permitted publication of the claimant’s name and address, but not his photograph or physical description. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was legally erroneous and inadequately reasoned. The central issues were the proper approach to varying a section 39 order and whether the Crown Court’s reasons justified publication.

1. The application for judicial review was allowed and the Crown Court’s decision was quashed. The Crown Court had failed to apply the proper legal test and had not given adequate reasons. The fact that the claimant was already known locally did not justify making his identity known to many more people. Nor was publication justified as a form of protection for him, particularly when his address would also be published.

2. The court had jurisdiction to entertain judicial review of the Crown Court order. Under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act, it could remit the matter or substitute its own decision only if, absent the error, there could have been only one lawful decision.

3. Under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the party seeking a reporting restriction must satisfy the court that there is a good reason for imposing it. On an application to vary or discharge an existing restriction, the party relying on the restriction must show that there remains a good reason not to vary or discharge it.

4. The court must have regard to the welfare of the child or young person under section 44. It must also consider the public interest and article 10 ECHR. Relevant public interests include knowing the outcome of criminal proceedings and the deterrent effect of identifying those convicted of serious offences. Any restriction must be necessary, proportionate and supported by a pressing social need.

5. The exercise is evaluative. The court should identify the factors favouring restriction and those favouring publication. Before conviction, welfare will generally take precedence. After conviction, the offender’s age and the seriousness of the offence are particularly significant. Where the factors are very evenly balanced, publication should be restricted.

6. On the facts, the claimant had pleaded guilty only to one count of simple arson committed at age 16. The public interest did not outweigh his welfare. Most of the objectives advanced by Newsquest and the police could be achieved without naming him. The application was therefore allowed and the decision quashed.

The judgment does not state that it was itself an appeal. It determined a judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision to vary a section 39 reporting restriction.