News

Herald lodges application to overturn reporting restriction at the Court of Appeal

Published

5 years ago

June 8, 2021

THE PEMBROKESHIRE HERALD has applied to the Court of Appeal to overturn the press gagging order which prevented the defence evidence in the James Oulton case.

Former Haverfordwest primary school teacher James Oulton was cleared of 31 charges of sexual touching of pupils, in a case he described as ‘a witch-hunt’, on May 4.

But the Herald faced criticism that it reported on the prosecution side of the case, but was not able to report on the defence – because a gagging order was made half way through the trial.

Balanced reporting was therefore not legally possible.

The BBC made representations at the time of the press restrictions being imposed, objecting on the grounds of freedom of the press. The Herald sent a barrister to court to object in the strongest terms, but the order was made nevertheless.

More on the hearing at Swansea Crown Court here:

Judge apologises to Herald journalist, but refuses to revoke press gagging order

On Friday, May 21 The Pembrokeshire Herald sent counsel to Swansea Crown Court to ask the trial judge to overturn or amend her order, which was still in place after the trial. Her Honour Judge Catherine Richards refused.

This newspaper argues that the judge was wrong in law to make the order, as it represented an “excessive interference with the principle of open justice, and an unwarranted restriction on the newspaper’s right to free expression.”

Editor Tom Sinclair said: “We feel that it is important that all high-profile court cases are covered by the press, and that this reporting should be fair and impartial.

“This means that the newspaper wanted to report on both the prosecution and defence evidence at the James Oulton trial – but we were unable to do so as a press restriction was made halfway through the trial. This meant we could only present the prosecution evidence to our readers.”

“I believe that the order made by the Swansea Crown Court was wrong, and the court could have secured the participation of defence witnesses without a press gagging order.”

“Despite the request for the press restriction coming from Mr Oulton’s own counsel, we feel that this meant that in the eyes of the public the reporting of the case was unfair to him.”

“Although the case is over, with Mr Oulton being acquitted of all charges, it is important that courts and judges know the right way forward for future trials. There are 77 Crown Courts in England and Wales where trials of this type will crop up in the future – because of this we are asking the Royal Court of Appeal in London to decide the matter.”

Herald editor Tom Sinclair said he understands that there are many good reasons why some evidence and some details of some cases are subject to reporting restrictions. “The law makes those circumstances clear”, he said.

He added: “We do not, however, believe that the evidence given in this case met the criteria for such a sweeping restriction.

“That is why we are taking this matter to the Court of Appeal for a definitive ruling on the issues raised by the Judge’s order.

“Court reporting fulfils a vital function. Justice must be seen to be done and reporting what happens in court makes sure it’s seen by as many people as possible.

“Being able to report only one half of proceedings, the unintended effect of HHJ Richards’ ruling, meant we could not do our job of giving our readers the whole story of a difficult and emotionally charged case.
The timing of the Defence’s application meant we had already reported the Prosecution case but were stopped from doing the same for all the evidence given on Mr Oulton’s behalf.

“It’s one thing to ignore an important case, in fact that’s very easy. That’s cowardice. It raises important questions about what else those who fail to report controversy are keeping from the public because they’re afraid to report the whole story.

“When justice takes place behind closed doors, or if it is not reported by the press, it is never seen to be done.

“And that can never be right.”

Crime

Broad Haven man remanded in custody over sexual harm prevention order breach

Published

10 hours ago

March 20, 2026

Court Reporter

Defendant admitted using Xbox without informing police as required under court order

ANTHONY COOMBES, aged 26, of Sand Banks, Broad Haven, appeared before Llanelli Magistrates’ Court on Thursday (Mar 20) charged with breaching a sexual harm prevention order.

The court heard that between February 26 and March 19, 2026, at Haverfordwest, Coombes repeatedly breached the order by using an Xbox device without informing police within three days, as required.

The offences relate to a sexual harm prevention order imposed at Swansea Crown Court on October 20, 2021.

Coombes indicated guilty pleas to the offences at the first hearing.

Magistrates committed the case to Swansea Crown Court for sentence.

He was remanded in custody ahead of the next hearing, which is due to take place at 9:00am on Friday, April 3, at Swansea Crown Court.

The court refused bail on the grounds that he was likely to offend, citing the nature and seriousness of the offences and his previous record and character.

A pre-sentence report was ordered.

News

Man arrested after suspected drugs-related death in Haverfordwest

Published

10 hours ago

March 20, 2026

Tom Sinclair

Police say death not suspicious as 46-year-old arrested over alleged Class A drug supply

A MAN has died following a medical emergency at a property in Haverfordwest, police have confirmed.

Emergency services were called at 3:18pm on Wednesday (March 18) after a report of a medical incident.

A man was pronounced dead at the scene.

Dyfed-Powys Police said the man’s next of kin have been informed and are being supported by officers.

The death is not being treated as suspicious at this time.

However, police confirmed that a man, aged 46, was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs.

He has since been released under investigation while enquiries continue.

No further details about the deceased have been formally released.

Crime

Illegal dog breeders ordered to pay over £129,000 after council probe

Published

11 hours ago

March 20, 2026

Tom Sinclair

FOUR people from Mynyddygarreg, Kidwelly, have been ordered to pay more than £129,000 following a successful prosecution for illegal dog breeding.

At Swansea Crown Court on Tuesday (Mar 10), before His Honour Judge Thomas KC, Stacey May June Edwards, Peter John Edwards, Sian Eleri Thomas and David Malcolm James Thomas, all of Sea Breeze, Mynyddygarreg, pleaded guilty to offences under the Breeding of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2014.

The court imposed confiscation orders totalling £129,873.41 under the Proceeds of Crime Act across the four defendants. They were also ordered to pay £8,000 in costs, while each defendant received a £2,000 fine.

The investigation began in April 2021 after Carmarthenshire County Council’s Animal Health team received an enquiry from Peter Edwards about obtaining a dog breeding licence. Although licensing guidance was provided and a partial application was submitted in February 2022, this was later withdrawn.

In March 2024, the council received a complaint that puppies were being advertised for sale without the required licence. Officers subsequently contacted online advertising platforms and issued data requests to assess the scale of activity.

Analysis of records from Pets4Homes, Freeads and Gumtree revealed multiple litters being advertised by members of the same household.

Correspondence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act confirmed that up to 25 dogs were kept at the property, including between 16 and 19 breeding females.

While some defendants claimed joint ownership of the dogs, others attempted to minimise their involvement.

The Herald understands that numerous puppy advertisements were posted between July 2020 and April 2025, demonstrating a sustained pattern of unlicensed breeding.

Carmarthenshire County Council’s Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Decarbonisation and Sustainability, Cllr Aled Vaughan Owen, said: “This case demonstrates the council’s firm stance against unlicensed and illegal dog breeding.

“These regulations are in place to protect animal welfare and ensure that breeding activities are subject to proper oversight. The scale of activity uncovered at this property was entirely unacceptable, and we welcome the court’s decision to issue significant confiscation orders under POCA.”

He added: “We urge anyone with concerns about illegal dog breeding to report it. Our Animal Health officers will continue to investigate thoroughly and take action against those who disregard the law.”

Residents are reminded that anyone breeding and selling dogs must comply with licensing regulations designed to protect both animal welfare and consumers.