A big part of the media law exams I sat last week had to with reporting restrictions - what we can and can't say when filing court reports in a variety of situations. For example any alleged victim of a sexual offence, from the moment they claim to have been a victim of a sexual offence, cannot be named by the media for the rest of their lifetime (with the notable exception that they can if they're later found guilty of something like wasting police time over it).

Youth Courts are another one. These exist to try people under the age of 18, and under the terms of the Children and Young Person's Act 1933 we can't name any child or young person who pops up in one of these, no matter if they're the victim, the accused, a witness, whatever.

But - we can if these restrictions are lifted, as they occasionally are by either victims seeking to clear their name, or the courts in seeking a fair, unprejudiced trial (e.g. appealing for more witnesses to come forward), or in the public interest. And it's on the grounds of the latter that The Times' Steve Bird has been able to name names in this fantastic report of yesterday's events at Newbury Youth Court:

Britain's youngest drink-driver attacked a lawyer and threw a jug of water at magistrates yesterday as she was sentenced for her second offence of driving while drunk.

Leanne Black, 14, screamed obscenities and kicked over a chair before lunging at the prosecutor and punching her in the back. As the three magistrates who had sentenced her to four months in a young offender institution tried to flee, the teenager picked up a two-litre jug of water and hurled it at them.

Black, wearing a shiny white tracksuit and fake gold jewellery, was eventually grabbed by security guards and bundled out of Newbury Youth Court, in Berkshire ... Mrs Bates [chair of the magistrates' bench] took the unusual step of allowing the child to be named moments before the violent scenes. She ruled that the public interest in the case outweighed the court’s duty to protect a young person.

...

The disturbance in Newbury was not limited to the court. As Black arrived she had hurled eggs at photographers as her mother stuck out her buttocks at them. As the family left, there were further scuffles.

[source: The Times - 'Girl, 14, gets new drink-drive ban, then hits lawyer']

There's something a little galling in reading, on the same day I only sit my driving theory test, that a 14 year old is being banned for the second time! I know I'll hardly be the first person to raise this issue, but what purpose does a ban serve on an individual already banned by virtue of their age?

Also in today's Times there's a great advert that I'm going to have to scan when I get home for Dayorama purposes - stay tuned.