| HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to respect for private life — Interference with — Identification of parents and deceased siblings in reports of inquest likely to impinge on private life of remaining child — Application for injunction preventing identification — Balance of Convention rights — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10
In re LM (Reporting restrictions: Coroner’s inquest) [2007] EWHC 1902 (Fam) [2007] EWHC 1902 (Fam)
Fam D: Sir Mark Potter P: 1 August 2007
The press would be permitted to report details of a surviving child’s parents and deceased siblings at an inquest into the death of one of the siblings.
Sir Mark Potter P, so stated on 1 August 2007 when granting an injunction permitting the press and other media to report at an inquest to be held into the death of L the names and addresses of L, her mother and father, and her deceased sibling, H, and of particulars otherwise leading to their identification, but placing an embargo on publication of the name and existence of LM, L’s surviving sister, or her school or carers, or publication of her photograph or other information likely to lead to her identification.
SIR MARK POTTER P said that the decision of the court was not one simply based on the welfare interests of the child. Hitherto made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, it was now best regarded as an exercise in balancing the rights of the media under art 10 of the Human Rights Convention and the art 8 rights of the child on whose behalf the application was made. His Lordship considered whether the principles to be applied in relation to the liberty of the press freely to report criminal proceedings for homicide in [2005] 1 AC 593 applied to the reporting of an inquest. The relevant features that emerged from that case were as follows. (1) The ordinary rule that the press could report everything which took place in a criminal court was a strong rule which could only be displaced by unusual or exceptional circumstances where justice so required. (2) In relation to a child not concerned in criminal proceedings as a defendant or witness, there had been a legislative choice not to extend to them the right to restrain publicity which might lead to identification. That factor could not be ignored. (3) The interference with the art 8 rights of a child in such circumstances was not to be regarded as of the same order when compared with the case of juveniles directly involved in criminal trials. However, if it was clear from the evidence that real and substantial damage to a child’s art 8 rights was likely to result if the injunction sought was not granted, which damage would otherwise not occur, the distinction between the involvement and non-involvement of that child in criminal proceedings did not go to the core of the balancing exercise to be performed by the court. (4) The reporting of a trial without a name of the defendant (or an inquest without the name of a person whose actions were likely to give rise to a finding of unlawful killing) rendered the proceedings a “disembodied” affair of less interest to editors and readers to the detriment of informed debate about criminal justice or the implications of a particular case. (5) The need for the media to resist applications for injunctions by parties not directly involved in court proceedings of a sensational or serious nature had a negative effect on contemporary reporting by reason of the high cost of such proceedings. His Lordship applied those principles (save as to the restriction necessary to protect LM’s identity) without modification or qualification in the light of the fact that the relevant proceedings would be inquest proceedings rather than criminal proceedings. Inquest proceedings were court proceedings similarly subject to the principles of open justice and the remedies contained and limitations implicit in s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It was clear that it would be a substantial and in principle undesirable interference with the art 10 rights of the media fully to report the proceedings and the circumstances surrounding the inquest if they were precluded from identifying the mother, father, L and H. As to the main issue the question whether his Lordship should go further and hold that the potential interference with LM’s art 8 rights was sufficient to justify the substantial interference represented by an embargo on identifying the parents, L and H, his Lordship was not satisfied that the art 10 rights were outweighed by the art 8 considerations relating to LM.
|
Appearances: Mary Lazarus (Head of Legal Department, A Local Authority) for the local authority; Alison Ball QC and Aviva Le Prevost (Harney & Co) for the mother; Paul Storey QC and Rebecca Brown (Holden & Co) for the father; Malcolm Chisholm (Stephen Rimmer & Co) for LM’s guardian; Damian Woodward-Carlton, directly instructed, for the coroner; Guy Vassall-Adams (Head of Legal Department, Times Newspapers Ltd and Head of Litigation Department, BBC) for Times Newspapers Ltd and the British Broadcasting Corpn.
|
