header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Children and young persons—Court proceedings

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
17 April 2014
Issue: 7603 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

R (on the application of JC and another) v Central Criminal Court [2014] EWHC 1041 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 53 (Apr)

Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court, Sir Brian Leveson P, Cranston and Holroyde JJ, 8 Apr 2014

An order made by any court under s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA 1933) cannot extend to reports of the proceedings after the subject of the order has reached the age of majority at 18.

Joel Bennathan QC (instructed by Straw & Pearce, Loughborough) for the claimants. The defendant did not appear and was not represented. Max Hill QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, London) for the first interested party. Gavin Millar QC (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the second interested party. Ian Wise QC and Maria Roche (instructed by Just for Kids Law) for the intervener.

In 2013, the claimants JC and RT, then 17 years of age, pleaded guilty to an offence in early 2012

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur under scrutiny
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
NLJ this week: Does dishonesty always mean strike-off?
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
NLJ this week: Potanin, prenups & privacy
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
NLJ this week: Malaysia’s arbitration overhaul
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
NLJ this week: Greed but no fraud in £1.4bn SKAT case
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll