Two newspaper editors were wrongly convicted of contravening a court order not to identify a young boy, the High Court has ruled.

Two judges were giving their reasons for an earlier decision to quash convictions and fines imposed on Simon Bradshaw, editor of The Argus, and David Briffett, former editor of the West Sussex County Times.

Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Newman, said: "This order should never have been made in the form in which it was made."

He said such orders "may constitute a significant curtailment of Press freedom and the courts must be vigilant to see that they are justified and, if made, are in clear and unambiguous terms".

Both Mr Bradshaw and Mr Briffett were convicted on March 5 this year by Mid Sussex magistrates of breaching High Court judge Mr Justice Hooper's non-identification order made under section 39 (2) of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act.

Articles in both newspapers had reported a High Court case in which the boy successfully challenged his expulsion from school.

The reports were accurate and - in line with the anonymity order - did not disclose the boy's name, address or school.

The magistrates convicted both editors of breaching Mr Justice Hooper's order and fined each of them £2,500, plus £547 legal costs, after a family friend said she had identified the child from the details in the newspapers.

Overturning their decision, Lord Justice Laws said: "In my judgment an order made in the form of that made in this case by Mr Justice Hooper is altogether too vague and general to constitute a sufficient basis for a subsequent prosecution under section 39.

"An experienced journalist might have assumed that a full prohibition was intended but the order did not say as much and the journalist might equally have considered that all that was prohibited was publication of the child's name."

If an order "does not tell the reader at all what it is he is prohibited from doing, as in my view is plainly the case, then the consequence must surely be that the order is altogether ineffective".

The judge said he was not criticising Mr Justice Hooper because when the draft order was before him for his approval it was no doubt uncontentious and no issues were likely to have been raised.

But he warned that in future similar cases, depending on the circumstances, evidence that a person had identified a child from newspaper reports might have to be treated "with a degree of caution".

The judge said: "A person might make such an identification even though the newspaper report had not itself been 'likely' to produce that result."

Agreeing, Mr Justice Newman said draft versions of orders being sought should be supplied to judges "in every case" so that the court could consider their ambit and terms and whether there was "a pressing social need" for them to be made.

Lord Justice Laws said the convictions against Mr Bradshaw and Mr Briffett were also unsafe because a new order made at the High Court after publication of the articles was presented to the magistrates as evidence against them.

This evidence was "grossly prejudicial" because the High Court implied both editors were in breach of Section 39 although no case had yet taken place against them.

Dominic Ward, solicitor for Mr Bradshaw and Mr Briffett, said: "This is an important and potentially far-reaching judgement which has implications for courts throughout the land.

"Where a Section 39 order is considered necessary it must be made in clear and unambiguous terms, stating what may not be reported.

"This judgement serves as a timely reminder of the law."

The judges ordered that the editors' costs should be paid out of central funds.