THE Manchester Evening News was today fined £30,000 for a breach of an injunction protecting the identities of James Bulger's killers.

But a High Court judge said she was satisfied it was not a deliberate breach - and the newspaper has been granted leave to appeal against the ruling.

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the Family Division, said the editor of the M.E.N. had taken a number of steps to prevent any breach of the injunction.

But she said it was clear there had been a ''sad blunder'' which had resulted in a breach.

''The observance of the injunction is of the highest importance,'' she told the hearing in London.

Dame Elizabeth also ordered Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the M.E.N., to pay the Attorney General's costs, estimated at £43,000.

The Attorney General took contempt proceedings against Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd over an article published in the M.E.N. on June 22 this year.

It was alleged that the newspaper - and its website - breached an injunction granted by the High Court banning the publication of any details which might lead to the whereabouts or identity of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.

Giving judgement, Dame Elizabeth said the M.E.N. had expressed its ''deep regrets'' at the breach and made clear it would ''never knowingly contravene a court injunction.''

She also said the editor, who was on a day's leave, ''had made a conscientious effort to avoid the very situation that occurred in his absence.''

She described one of the Attorney General's arguments about possible use of the internet to subsequently identify the whereabouts of the two boys as ''tortuous''.

But she added: ''I am satisfied that the information given in the article provided added information which, taken with other local knowledge, was likely to lead to the identification of the then whereabouts of one or both boys.''

She told the court that it was ''fortunate'' that no harm had come from publication of the information in the M.E.N. She also ruled that she was ''entirely satisfied'' that the newspaper had not taken a ''calculated risk'' in order to boost sales.

Mr Desmond Browne, QC, counsel for the publishers, said that the newspaper had since taken stringent steps to ensure that such a mistake could not occur in the future, having taken ''urgent steps'' to rectify the position once the error had been spotted.

The M.E.N. said in a statement today: ''The Manchester Evening News is pleased that the judge rejected as an 'elaborate edifice' the Attorney General's main argument, that by taking a long and complicated series of steps, a determined reader could have established the whereabouts of one of the two boys.

''The case brought to light the fact that the exact whereabouts of the boys had been very easily ascertainable for some years on the website of a government department.

''The Manchester Evening News naturally regrets that the judge accepted the Attorney-General's secondary argument that 'the information given in the article provided added information which, taken with other local knowledge, was likely to lead to the identification of the then whereabouts of one or both boys'.

''The Manchester Evening News reasserts its support for the judge's original order giving anonymity to the boys and repeats that it would never knowingly contravene a court order. This was not a deliberate breach of the order.

''The judge found in her judgement that the editor 'took positive steps to comply with the order' and 'had made a conscientious effort to avoid the situation which occurred in his absence'.

''Counsel has advised that there are substantial grounds for an appeal and the Manchester Evening News is considering that course of action.''

Tweet