THE editor of the Pembrokeshire Herald newspaper has today been found guilty of identifying the victim of a sexual offence.

Thomas Hutton Sinclair appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates Court this morning (Friday May 12).

He had previously pleaded not guilty to the charge at Llanelli Magistrates Court on April 20.

On that date, Sinclair claimed the article in the newspaper’s sister title, the Ceredigion Herald, which allegedly identified the victim of a sex crime did not break the law because anyone interested in the case “probably already knew who she was”.

Sinclair also claimed that the article could not be considered a breach of the Sexual Offences Act 1992 – which grants victims in such cases lifelong anonymity - because so few people read the Ceredigion Herald that it was unlikely anyone who knew her or the guilty man would have read it.

It was claimed that, as only 0.68 per cent of the Ceredigion population – around 450 people - read the title, there was little risk of the woman being identified.

In the report, the newspaper named the guilty man and gave details of his age and occupation before detailing his “familial links” to the victim. The publishing of those links were, in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service, enough to identify the victim.

The 1992 Act strictly forbids the detailing of personal and family relationships between the perpetrator of a sex crime and the victim.

The court was told that the report had been written by a trainee journalist, sent to court without training, supervision or support.

Deputy editor John Coles had then read the report “to check for grammar and style” but Mr Coles had not considered “legal compliance” because, he said in a statement read to the court, he had "no legal training”.

The report was then forwarded to Sinclair, but he had not read it before printing it.

District Judge David Parsons had deferred passing judgement on the case until May 12 to consider the legal arguments put forward by the defence.

Judge Parsons found Sinclair, 37, guilty of the charge on May 12.

Defending Sinclair, Matthew Paul said that, despite Sinclair having “a previous conviction for a like matter,” when the paper identified a youth despite a legal order being in place, that offence was pre-dated by the Ceredigion Herald matter.

“This was effectively the first report published by any of the Herald group of newspapers which contravened the law,” he added.

He also referred to a conviction of making a false representation, dating back to 2010, for which a conditional discharge was imposed on Sinclair.

Mr Paul also took exception to the previously-reported Ceredigion Herald figures.

“The reporting of this case has had a significant impact on the advertising revenue; particularly the certain gleeful reporting by other newspapers. The circulation figures have now grown to 3,200, around 8,000 people reading it. The running of the defence of the case has been damaging to the newspaper.”

A statement from the victim was read out in court, stating she was informed details of the case would not be made public.

She described the experience of being identified as “very stressful,” adding: “I thought I could finally move forward with the whole thing behind me; I was building up the courage to visit friends when I found out about this article. Finding out about this article has set me back; I cannot move forward.

“I hope by making this statement it will never happen again.”

In passing judgement, District judge David Parsons said: “It must be obvious to everybody it’s a matter of significant public concern.”

He said the identification of victims posed “real psychological harm to victims, harm confirmed by this victim in her victim statement”.

He warned that the damage caused by potential identification “risks future injustices to victims, who may feel their identity will be in the public domain”.

“That has to be taken in to account when considering appropriate sentencing,” he added.

He had concluded: “Having reminded myself that the prosecution bring the charge and have the burden of proof, and, having carefully considered the evidence, I am sure that the report includes matters likely to lead members of the public to identify [the person] against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed.”

Sinclair, of Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven, was fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £1,500 compensation, £500 costs and £150 surcharge.

He must pay the amount, equating to some £7.77 per reader on the previous figures, within 28 days.

After sentencing, Sinclair sent out an official statement: “District Judge Parsons' decision was badly wrong. The District Judge reached factual conclusions that were not reasonably available to him, and made errors of law.

“I maintain that there was no likelihood of the information in the report leading members of the public to identify the complainant. I will be appealing against both the conviction and sentence, and fully expect that the District Judge's decision will be overturned by the higher courts.”

He had earlier said: “Since this has happened I’ve put in to position better training for our court reporters, extensive training courses in Cardiff. As we grow as a business we get better at what we do. We’ve printed tens of thousands of articles, so far two have fallen foul of the law.

“If the CPS had not taken this case to court the victim would not have known anything about this article.”

He added: “Now that the victim has been made aware of the article by the police we are deeply sorry for any hurt that has been caused by the article which was printed in the Ceredigion Herald. We are, as a newspaper, happy that steps have been taken since to improve our court reporting such that this will not happen in the future.”