THE controversial naming of a 16-year-old who incited people to theft and criminal damage during the riots and had his anonymity stripped away by the courts has made national headlines.

Your Worcester News successfully challenged the Section 39 order of the Children and Young Persons Act which would have banned the media from identifying 16-year-old Johnny Melfah, of Thames Drive, Droitwich, during his court appearance on Tuesday.

He had not entered a plea when the order was challenged by reporter Richard Vernalls in what is thought to be a legal first, after it was argued the crime was so serious, it was in the public interest to report the full facts of the case.

The following day, magistrates lifted a separate automatic ban on naming Melfah when he appeared at the youth court to admit posting comments on a Facebook page called Letz Start a Riot.

The lifting of the ban on Tuesday is believed to be one of the first times a youth has been named before a plea was entered.

On Wednesday, youth court magistrates then backed their colleagues’ decision, with chairman of the bench Linda Griffin saying the ban should be lifted in the public interest and to deter others.

Melfah will be sentenced on September 14.

Meanwhile, national newspapers, TV and radio stations, including BBC Radio Five Live, have covered the story.

Some people believe the teenager should have kept his anonymity, regardless of the circumstances.

However, deputy editor John Wilson appeared on BBC Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine show yesterday to explain why the paper had challenged the order.

Mr Wilson said: “We take protection of youngsters very seriously at the Worcester News but it is such an important issue we felt it had to be challenged.

"I hope the lad can put this behind him and go on to live his life.

“But our over-riding thought was that are we doing the job on behalf of the public – and the law entitles us to do that.”

Phillip Jenkins, deputy chairman of the South Worcestershire Bench and a youth court magistrate, said magistrates did not often lift the ban on reporting a youth’s identity, but there was a clear procedure.

“Everybody will have been given a chance to make representations, the legal adviser will have given their advice and then the magistrates can make a decision,” he said.

“Magistrates can rely on three reasons to lift the restrictions and in this case, the only one I could see them using was to lift in the public interest.

“It would not be appropriate for me to go behind the magistrates’ decision, but they will have made their decision based on what was before them and the representations made.”