Torbay Borough Council v News Group Newspapers

When considering an injunction affecting publication about a child, the court must determine whether Article 8 is engaged and balance it independently against Article 10. Neither right has automatic precedence. Any restriction must rest on relevant and sufficient grounds, answer a pressing social need and go no further than necessary.

A child with sufficient understanding and maturity may decide whether to disclose personal information. The court must recognise and defend that autonomy. Anonymity and restrictions on soliciting information may protect another child without suppressing the competent child’s story. Interim restraint requires a convincingly established real prospect that publication will ultimately be prohibited under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

A newspaper publisher applied to vary an injunction which had protected Angela Roddy since care proceedings begun when she became pregnant aged 12. Nearly 17 and no longer subject to a care order, Angela wished to describe her experiences of teenage pregnancy, care and her child’s adoption.

The local authority accepted Angela’s capacity to decide for herself but sought protection for the anonymity of X, the putative father, and Y, Angela’s adopted child. It also contended that publication of Angela’s story might destabilise Y’s adoptive placement and initially sought temporary protection against identification of the authority.

The central issues were how Articles 8 and 10 should be balanced, whether Angela could exercise her own Convention rights, and whether the evidence justified restricting publication beyond protecting X’s and Y’s identities.

1. The existing order was discharged and narrower injunctions were substituted. Angela could consent to publication of information identifying her. X’s anonymity remained protected until 4 December 2004, while Y’s anonymity was protected until 27 January 2018. Restrictions on soliciting information about X and Y were also imposed. Subject to further submissions, there was to be no order as to costs.

2. Following Re S (A Child) [2003] EWCA Civ 963, the protective jurisdiction provided a vehicle for balancing the independently engaged rights under Articles 8 and 10. Neither right was a trump card. The court had to assess whether interference with each right was proportionate, supported by relevant and sufficient grounds, responsive to a pressing social need and no greater than necessary.

3. Article 8 protected personal autonomy as well as secrecy. It included a person’s choice whether private experiences should remain within an inner circle or be shared with others. Communicating one’s personal history could therefore engage both Articles 8 and 10.

4. Angela possessed sufficient understanding and maturity to decide whether to publish her intimate personal history. The court had a duty to recognise and defend the informed choice of a competent child. Her parents’ support and the local authority’s lack of opposition were relevant but not determinative. The decision remained Angela’s.

5. X’s and Y’s Article 8 interests justified injunctions preserving their anonymity and restricting solicitation. A prohibition against telling their stories anonymously would interfere disproportionately with Angela’s Articles 8 and 10 rights and the publisher’s Article 10 rights. Some recognition by people already familiar with the facts was a proportionate risk.

6. The local authority produced no evidential foundation for its contention that publication would destabilise Y’s adoptive placement. Under section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, it had not convincingly established a real prospect of obtaining wider restraint at trial. Even if the predicted facts were proved, the public interest and Angela’s compelling claim to tell her story meant that wider restraint would probably remain disproportionate.

7. The court refused to require advance copies of proposed articles. Judges determine legality and whether publication would cause harm sufficient to justify restraint. They do not supervise taste, decency or journalistic presentation.

• High Court, 2 December 2003: discharged the order of 7 July 2000 and substituted narrower injunctions protecting X and Y while permitting Angela to consent to publication identifying herself.
• High Court, 7 July 2000: discharged Johnson J’s order and made a contra mundum injunction protecting Angela and X.
• High Court, 25 May 2000: Bracewell J made care orders concerning Angela and Y.
• High Court, 26 October 1999: Johnson J replaced the earlier order and continued protection of the participants’ identities.
• High Court, 21 September 1999: Bracewell J made the original order protecting Angela’s and X’s identities.