Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors

A court must take reasonable measures to protect individuals against serious threats to life, physical integrity and psychological health. An injunction protecting identity and whereabouts may therefore be granted against the world where the evidence establishes a continuing and serious risk. Any restriction on freedom of expression must remain necessary and proportionate. Legitimate public debate about matters connected with the individual may continue if it does not require disclosure of identity or location. The absence of opposition from media defendants is relevant evidence but cannot, by itself, justify an injunction. The order should permit discharge or variation if circumstances change.

Maxine Carr sought continuation of a contra mundum injunction protecting her new identity and present and future whereabouts. The application was supported by the Home Office, the probation service and the relevant police authority. The media defendants did not attend or consent, but had decided not to contest the application. The central issues were whether the evidence established an ongoing risk of serious physical and psychological harm, and whether restrictions on freedom of expression were necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was granted. The court made the injunction in the terms of the draft order.
2. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court had a duty to take reasonable measures to protect the applicant against threats to the rights secured by articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Those rights imposed an unchallengeable protective obligation in the circumstances.
3. Article 8 was also engaged. The concept of privacy extended to physical and psychological integrity, and preservation of mental stability was a necessary precondition for exercising article 8 rights.
4. The evidence established a continuing danger of serious physical and psychological harm. The existing injunctions had materially reduced those risks and enabled the police, Home Office and probation service to perform their protective, treatment and rehabilitation functions.
5. Restrictions affecting article 10 rights required circumspection and had to go no further than necessary and proportionate. There was legitimate public interest in matters connected with the applicant, including public expenditure, the Soham events and child-protection lessons. Disclosure of her identity or whereabouts was not necessary for that debate.
6. The media’s decision not to contest the application was not determinative. It nevertheless supported the conclusion that legitimate media functions had not been significantly inhibited. The injunction was necessary to protect life, physical safety and psychological health, and was proportionate to the risks. The order allowed any interested party to seek discharge or variation if circumstances changed.