header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 April 2014
Issue: 7603 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Children and young persons—Court proceedings

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll