THE CROWN COURT judge presiding over the James Oulton trial has issued a reporting restriction to the press, which local media says is a “draconian” measure which will hamper the reporting of the child abuse case.

In total, 11 ex-pupils, who were under 13, have accused Oulton, 34, of sexually assaulting them.

He denies 30 charges at Swansea Crown Court, relating to his time at a primary school in Haverfordwest, between 2012 and 2018.

Her Honour Judge C Richards sitting at Swansea Crown Court on Monday (Apr 19) granted an application for a media gagging order made by Oulton’s defence barrister Christopher Clee QC.

The BBC and The Pembrokeshire Herald opposed the order in court, with the Herald saying it will try to overturn the order at the Court of Appeal.

Judge C Richards said that whilst the Pembrokeshire Herald “rightfully and properly reported on the case”, public comments, which have now been restricted, had “been of concern”.

The application was to restrict the reporting of the names of eight adult defence witnesses, or any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify who the witnesses are.

However, the ‘likely to lead’ phrase means, because of possible jigsaw identification of witnesses, likely none of the defence evidence in the case could be reported by the press without publishers running the risk of breaching the order.

Judge C Richards first read legal submissions from the legal team at the BBC.

Barrister for Herald News (UK) Ltd, Matthew Graham Paul, made submissions orally on behalf of this newspaper.

He told the court: “The imposing of reporting restrictions under S.46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 should be approached with caution.

“The order sought by my learned friend would not merely postpone the reporting of this case, it would, in effect, prohibit any significant reporting of the majority of the defence case altogether.

“The freedom of the press is an absolute fundamental part of court proceedings, and Article 10 rights, necessary in a democratic society.

“The court should exhaust every other remedy before making an order effectively harming the reporting of the case.”

Matthew Paul explained that whilst he understood that there were concerns over Facebook comments written by members of the public on news reports on the Pembrokeshire Herald’s Facebook page, this matter had been resolved by banning commenting all together – something which Facebook has started to allow on specific posts since April 1, 2021.

Matthew Paul explained to the court that Press restriction orders under Section (4)2 The Contempt of Court Act 1981 were rare, “and required a high level of evidence before they were granted”.

“This is not the case for orders made under S.46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999” he said, but argued that applications under both pieces of legislation “should be treated in the same way.”

He said: “The court has an enormous arsenal of sanctions to deploy against anyone violating the Contempt of Court Act”

Calling the application by the defence “draconian”, he added “the court has got several ways of putting witnesses at ease, aside from reporting restrictions.

“Prohibiting a free press on a trial which is of significant interest in my submission is wrong. It is improper for the court to make this s.46 order.”

The judge noted that there had been, in her opinion, an increase in reluctance for witnesses to give evidence since the case had attracted so much publicity.

Judge C Richards said: “I have not read them myself, but I was made aware of public comments on the Herald Facebook page, and that they had caused a bit of a stir in Pembrokeshire.

“It was not anything that I needed to concern the jury about, and I noted that the comment section was promptly restricted.”

When making her order, the judge said: “Continued reporting could mean the quality of evidence given by witnesses could be diminished.

“I am satisfied that a reporting direction is necessary under section 46 and am satisfied that this is in the interests of justice.”

It was also stressed that the reporting restriction does not only cover the press, but also covers members of the public, who could now be breaking the law if they name defence witnesses on social media platforms.

Testimony from the 11 child witnesses for the prosecution can still be reported, but the alleged victims cannot be named.