Here's a little bit of background to this week's front page story about a 16-year-old's crime spree.
The case was heard in a youth court in Bootle on Tuesday, meaning there were some pretty strict rules in force.
The general public is barred from youth courts. Reporters are allowed to attend but are not allowed to identify a youth involved or give any information which may help people identify them. That means no name or address but also no mention of his or her school or anything too specific about them or their families.
However, the law does provide a few occasions when these restrictions may be lifted.
After seeing the defendant plead guilty to a string of crimes, Crosby Herald reporter Mark Johnson argued - successfully - that identifying a “persistent and serious offender” like Quinton, was in the public interest.
Mark says: "During a court interval I asked the usher to inform District Judge Michael Abelson that I would like to make representations and she then went to his chambers to make him aware.
"When court commenced, the District Judge asked me to explain who I was and which paper I wrote for and why I wanted the restrictions lifted.
"He agreed to lift them, saying, 'He has such a prolific record so I am minded to lift the anonymity protecting his name'."
The decision meant we were able to publish his name and address rather than simply calling him "a 16-year-old boy from Thornton".

This is how the Judicial Studies Board explains the 'public interest' provision:

The Youth Court also has the power to order the lifting of the reporting restrictions to any extent, in relation to a child or young person who has been convicted, if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The child or young person may therefore be identified in relation to any proceedings related to the prosecution or conviction of the offender for the offence, the manner in which he or his parent or guardian should be dealt with in respect of the offence, the enforcement, variation, revocation or discharge of an order made in respect of the offence, the enforcement of any rule made under section 16(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 in respect of an attendance centre order or the enforcement of any requirements relating to detention and training orders under section 76 (6)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

We believe it is in the public interest that the victims of his crimes are able to see justice being done, that his neighbours are aware of his crimes and that the whole case acts as a warning and a deterrent to others.
And we believe that someone who repeatedly breaks the law in such a reckless way should not be protected from the public view.

• Post to:
•  del.icio.us
•  Digg
•  Newsvine
•  Nowpublic
•  Reddit