Two Sussex newspaper editors have won a landmark test case about reporting court hearings involving children.

The Argus editor Simon Bradshaw, 42, of Brunswick Square, Hove, and former editorial director of the West Sussex County Times David Briffett, 62, of Glendale Close, Horsham, were yesterday cleared of breaching an order to identify a boy.

In an appeal hearing at the High Court in London, Lord Justice Laws said an order made in court restricting what journalists could report had been unclear.

The editors had been found guilty by Mid Sussex magistrates in March of contravening a Section 39 order of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which prevents anything being published "calculated to lead to" the identification of a child.

The case hinged on a High Court case in which the boy, from the Horsham district, successfully challenged his school's decision to expel him. The court imposed a Section 39 order.

The reports did not include the boy's name, address or school.

Magistrates heard a family friend with children at the same school as the boy identified him from the details.

Yesterday Jollyon Robertson, prosecuting, said Section 39 was all- embracing and directed at an informed audience.

He said: "This is a section which is in common usage in this country and well understood."

But Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Newman, quashed Mr Bradshaw's and Mr Briffett's criminal convictions. They will give written reasons for their decisions in October.

Lord Justice Laws said: "Someone faced with an order shouldn't have to make any assumptions. He should be told by the court what he cannot do, and by inference what he can do, without having to burrow through books."

Mr Justice Newman said the editors faced a difficult task to know which particulars they could or could not report.

He said: "Section 39 comes from the basis that an editor has freedom to publish, apart from exceptions which the court can lay down. If there is someone with their nose around the lace curtains every day of the week, a sensible court would say that would not amount to a likelihood they were going to identify."

It was down to responsible editors to judge what could be reported under a Section 39 order.

It is the first time a conviction under Section 39 has been appealed in the High Court.

Lord Justice Laws said the editors would not have to stand trial again - "The appellants stand acquitted of the charges. That is the end of the matter.

"There are important issues and we are going to reserve our reasons."

After the case Gavin Miller QC, for the appellants, said: "I think what will emerge from this judgement is that if judges want to restrict reporting they have to do so clearly. It is not good enough just to make some kind of general order. There is a positive obligation on the part of the judge to make a clear order. Freedom of expression is incredibly important."

Mr Miller said the case sent a warning to the Crown Prosecution Service about attempting to prosecute journalists and editors under Section 39.

Dominic Ward, solicitor for Mr Bradshaw and Mr Briffett said: "This is a case where two very experienced editors were criminalised in circumstances where they took care not to identify the child. They exercised judgement as to what could or could not be published.

"The underlying order was in our view vague and of dubious clarity. It is pretty clear from comments made from the bench that the court felt uncomfortable about a criminal conviction standing on the basis of an order which was vague and unclear."

Mr Bradshaw said: "This decision defends the rights of newspapers to properly report the courts which the original magistrates decision threatened to destroy."

The question of costs will be decided at the same time as the written judgement is given.