How this newspaper’s legal battle helped shape national guidance on reporting restrictions

A LITTLE-KNOWN legal challenge by The Pembrokeshire Herald has left a lasting mark on how courts across England and Wales handle reporting restrictions.

The case originated in a high-profile local trial, a mid-trial anonymity order for defence witnesses, threats to a reporter, and public accusations of biased coverage — accusations rooted in legal restrictions rather than editorial choice.

It culminated in the Herald becoming one of the few independent regional titles to take a Crown Court judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

Though the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, the case did not end there. The following year, Re Pembrokeshire Herald / R v Oulton [2021] EWCA Crim 1165 was cited in the Judicial College’s official guidance on Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts — the key reference used by judges and practitioners nationwide.

For a small independent paper serving rural Pembrokeshire, this represents a rare legacy: turning a local battle into a contribution to national standards on open justice.

A trial with limited coverage

The proceedings centred on the 2021 trial of former Haverfordwest primary school teacher James Oulton at Swansea Crown Court. He faced 30 counts of sexual assault on former pupils.

Other media outlets provided limited coverage, leaving The Herald to deliver detailed daily reporting on a case of significant local importance.

The newspaper reported the prosecution evidence extensively, consistent with the default principle of open justice: criminal trials are heard in public so that justice can be seen to be done.

Mid-trial restrictions

That changed when the trial judge imposed a reporting restriction order under section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

The order protected the anonymity of several adult defence witnesses, based on evidence of fear and distress linked to local tensions and social media commentary.

Readers continued to see detailed prosecution accounts, but The Herald was restricted from equivalent contemporaneous reporting of the defence case.

Criticism followed swiftly, with accusations of one-sided coverage.

In truth, The Herald argued it had been legally prevented from presenting the fuller picture.

The imbalance became particularly stark after Oulton was found not guilty of all charges. Many interpreted the verdict through the lens of the earlier, necessarily incomplete reporting.

Pressures in and around court

Tensions escalated beyond editorial debate.

Herald reporter Carli Newell was allegedly threatened in the public gallery and had to be removed for her safety. The judge later apologised in open court.

The newspaper also received hostile communications.

Despite this, it continued its coverage.

An expensive appeal

Frustrated by the restrictions and their effects, The Herald took the rare step of challenging the order via section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

This route allows media organisations to appeal certain reporting restrictions to the Court of Appeal.

With no corporate backer, the fight was very expensive — much of it funded from Editor Thomas Sinclair’s savings.

The BBC expressed sympathy but cited budget constraints for joining as co-appellant. The Press Association considered the case important enough to attend the hearing, reportedly sending the only other person in the public gallery.

The Herald was represented by barrister Matthew Graham Paul, with Sinclair and assistant Ryan Millward present.

The principle at stake

At its core, the challenge concerned open justice: the right of the public to receive fair, accurate, and contemporaneous reporting of proceedings heard in open court.

Restrictions, while sometimes necessary to protect witnesses, should be proportionate, evidence-based, and subject to proper challenge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, primarily on timing and jurisdictional grounds. The challenge came after witnesses had testified in reliance on the order, and certain procedural routes were limited.

However, the judgment engaged with the important issues raised and has since been referenced in official guidance.

National impact

In 2022, the Judicial College guidance expressly cited the case in sections addressing appeals against reporting restrictions, section 159 procedures, and the limits of appellate powers.

It reinforces principles the Herald championed: fair and contemporaneous reporting, the media’s role as the “eyes and ears” of the public, and the need for restrictions to be necessary and proportionate.

Why it matters

In an era when many local newspapers have scaled back court reporting due to costs, The Herald invested heavily in coverage, endured criticism and threats, and then risked significant resources to defend the public’s right to fuller information.

It was not a fight for sensationalism, but for the ability to report more — not less.

The newspaper was blamed for imbalance while simultaneously battling for the tools to correct it.

Though the specific appeal was lost, the principles endure.

A small independent title from Pembrokeshire helped inform how courts nationwide approach the delicate balance between open justice, witness protection, and fair reporting.

Photo caption:

Press freedom and open justice: The Pembrokeshire Herald took its reporting restrictions battle to the Court of Appeal (Pic: Herald).