A Senior Magistrate has spoken out after the media published details of defendants he asked them not to print.

Archibald Warner encouraged the media not to report the names and addresses of three defendants in two cases in Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

Mr. Warner said his request for no publicity was made in the spirit of the Criminal Code.

No legally binding publication ban was enforced.

No convictions were recorded against the three defendants, who the court heard had no previous convictions.

Two of the defendants were young women who appeared in court and admitted fighting on Front Street.

They were conditionally discharged, and another accused was a woman who admitted making harassing phone calls. She was given an absolute discharge (see story below).

The Royal Gazette decided to print the details of the cases, and the defendants' names and addresses, on grounds of public interest.

Speaking in open court after reports of both cases appeared in the print media, Mr. Warner yesterday said: "Whatever that decision (to publish) is based on, this is my court and The Royal Gazette and any other media who disrespect this court can only expect the level of cooperation that it gives to this court.

"This is not intended as a threat.

"This is intended to represent a clear working relationship."

Royal Gazette Editor Bill Zuill said no disrespect was intended to Mr. Warner or the court.

Instead, he said that given that Mr. Warner had "encouraged" the newspaper not to identify the defendants but had made it clear that he was not instructing the newspaper not to publish their names, The Royal Gazette had to balance Mr. Warner's view against the public's right to know.

"We have a right and responsibility to give a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the courts, including the identities of people accused of crimes," Mr. Zuill said.

"There are very strict guidelines with regard to identification of people involved in sexual offences and of children that we rigorously uphold.

"But in the absence of a statutory restriction on identification, we have an obligation to say who has appeared in court, in the same way that any member of the public exercising his or her right to attend court would be aware of the people's identities.

"Had Mr. Warner formally banned us from reporting on the identities of those concerned, we would certainly have challenged it, not out of disrespect to Mr. Warner, but in in the interests of protecting the public's right to know and preventing any erosion of that right. "I am disappointed that Mr. Warner seems to have taken this as a personal affront and apparently plans to restrict the court's cooperation with the media.

"I hope he will reconsider his position so the court can do its job transparently and the media can meet its obligations."