header-logo header-logo

17 April 2014
Issue: 7603 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Children and young persons—Court proceedings

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

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
back-to-top-scroll