A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
In refusing a writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner’s release from detention, the Court of Appeal held, applying Corke, Re  1 W.L.R. 899, that where a person had been convicted by a competent court of summary jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy was to appeal against conviction and not by way of application for habeas corpus.
The Court of Appeal considered the consequences of its earlier decision to quash an appellant’s conviction for causing criminal damage when that offence had not fallen under its jurisdiction in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.1. It withdrew part of its earlier decision and deployed an unusual route to impose an absolute discharge on the appellant instead.
Changes to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had not ousted the court’s jurisdiction, arising from Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd  Fam. 430, to order lifetime anonymity for a child offender after their 18th birthday in exceptional cases. It was necessary to make such order for an offender who had pleaded guilty to inciting terrorism overseas when he was 14 years old. Identifying him in public would fundamentally undermine his rehabilitation and leave him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation, in particular due to his autism.
Committal to prison for six months was the appropriate penalty for an offender who had committed a contempt of court by breaching a reporting restriction order by filming the defendants in a sexual exploitation trial as they arrived at court and live streaming the resulting video over the internet.