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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll