A document summarising examples of case law to be referenced in the NCTJ Media Law and Court Reporting exams. Perfect for journalism students. Includes topics such as open justice, naming youths in court, and privacy.
Principle of Open Justice
● Scott v Scott - 1911 divorce case. “Every court of justice is open to every subject of
the King” (Lord Halsbury)
● 1998 - in the case of R v Legal Aid Board ex p Kaim Todner in the Court of Appeal,
Lord Woolf said that open justice “is necessary because the public nature of
proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court”
● 1913 - the appellate committee of the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court)
affirmed the common law rule that normally courts must administer justice in public
● Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Limited (1979) - judges ruled that court
proceedings should be held in public
● R v Felixstowe Justice ex p Leigh - Lord Justice Watkins said journalists in court are
“indispensable”. In the same case, Watkins said there is “no such person known to
law as an anonymous JP”, explaining the magistrates' names should be given
● R v Crook (Tim) 1989 - the Court of Appeal said that sometimes when the public is
excluded, journalists are allowed to remain in court ie. rowdy supporters/protesters
Naming youths
● JC and RT v Central Criminal Court - S45 and S39 orders for juveniles appearing in
adult courts expire at age 18
● James Bulger - if the juvenile has committed a serious crime, the argument for lifting
restrictions is stronger
● Court of Appeal Markham and R v Aziz - if the application to lift a restriction has been
refused, it can be resubmitted after a guilty plea/verdict
● R v Aziz - the media can argue that reporting names act as a deterrent to other
young offenders
● S45 orders can be made in respect of child victims but they must be ‘concerned in
the proceedings’
● Chief Constable of Surrey v JHD and DHD - Mr Justice Elias said in the High Court
where innocent relatives were ‘caught up in proceedings’, they may suffer due to
publicity but this is ‘not relevant or a good reason for’ granting an S39 order
● R v Lee - there must be a good reason for making an S45 order when a youth
appears in adult court. It should not be applied just because of their age
● Judicial College guidance - anonymity orders cannot be made in respect of a dead
juvenile
● R v Southwark Crown Court ex p Godwin - S39/45 orders cannot be made to protect
adults
● R v Teesside Crown Court ex p Gazette Media Co Ltd. - S39/45 orders should not be
made to protect adults charged with child sex offences
Lifting reporting restrictions
● R v Hutchinson - the court can lift a restriction if it is in the public interest and places
a “substantial and unreasonable burden on reporting”
Access to court documents
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller katyroberts. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.71. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
