A MAGISTRATE asked if she could gag a reporter by restricting his article on an abusive man's violent threats in front of Worcester children because he had 'learning disabilities'.

City magistrate Sue Dowty asked her clerk if she could impose a Press restriction on the reporting of the case of 31-year-old Nathan Ellis at Worcester Magistrates Court on Thursday - but was told she had no right to do so.

Her enquiry about whether she could impose such a draconian measure came just a week after she and a colleague granted a solicitor's request that the address of a teenager suspected of an arson attack in Evesham should not be published. This section 11 was made despite the address having previously been published.

At this hearing the reporter was not asked by magistrates if he wished to make representations or contest the order following the application by Worcester solicitor Sam Lamsdale.

It was explained at court by the reporter that the address had already been published and was in the public domain. He was then asked to leave the court and remove all reference to the suspected arsonist's address.

This week Ellis of Sycamore Road, Worcester, admitted using threatening, abusive words or behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress and obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty in Worcester city centre at around 1pm on December 22 last year.

Indeed, his behaviour became so unruly that he had to be sprayed by police with the incapacitant called PAVA spray.

Usually only children (defendants under the age of 18) and the victims of sexual assaults are granted anonymity although a court does have powers to withhold certain details such as names and addresses in certain very exceptional circumstances - but never for the comfort of defendants.

Despite her request the magistrate was told by her legal adviser, also referred to as the court clerk, that the bench had no powers to make such an order in relation to Ellis because he was an adult.

Mark Hambling, prosecuting, said Ellis clenched his fists and was described as being 'abusive to the officer and abusive generally'.

He said: "This takes place in a public place with members of the public about. There was much profanity and a crowd had formed. There were children involved.

"He was arrested for a public order matter and he continues to be abusive."

The officer produced PAVA spray, preparing for what was 'possibly a punch heading their way'. The spray was discharged and the defendant was arrested.

Barry Newton, defending, said his client had a learning disability and attended court with his mental health support worker and his grandfather who was waiting downstairs. He has been in supported accommodation for two to three years.

Mr Newton said: "This incident, on another occasion, with different personalities involved in terms of the officers, may have resulted in him being calmed down. Mr Ellis can't remember who he was arguing with."

Magistrates granted Ellis a conditional discharge for 12 months. After the verdict Mrs Dowty, the chairman of the bench, could he heard to say to her clerk: "Can we make a Press order because of his learning disability?"

However, court clerk Huw Jones replied: "No, he's an adult."

The same magistrate and a colleague made an order in relation to Kieron Sheridan, 18, a man accused of arson with intent to endanger life at Forest Gate, Evesham on June 18, 2019. This happened at a hearing last week.

An order was made under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibiting publication of address of the defendant which lasts until further order.

"The purpose of this order is to protect the welfare of the defendant" the order states. "It is a contempt punishable by a fine or imprisonment to publish details in breach of this order."

However, the Crown Prosecution Service makes the point that 'it is rare for the court to make such a direction in respect of a defendant'.

Indeed, on the CPS website it says: "Section 11 is not enacted for the comfort and feelings of defendants and there is a requirement of clarity of terms and duration, and explanations for its purpose that a section 11 order has to meet."