A (A Minor), Re

Applications for reporting restriction orders require a fact-sensitive balancing of the competing rights under articles 8 and 10 ECHR. Neither right has presumptive priority. The court must focus intensely on the specific rights engaged, examine the justification for interfering with each right, and apply proportionality to both.

The public interest may favour reporting police investigations into serious child deaths, including the arrest of a suspect. That does not permit intrusive publication about private family life. The public-domain principle applies differently to confidentiality and intrusion: repetition of known facts may remain an interference with private life. A child’s welfare may justify a contra mundum order, including protection against identification through relatives, while adult family members may receive narrower protection.

The local authority sought a reporting restriction order in care proceedings concerning a surviving child following the deaths of her two brothers. The application was supported by the child’s mother, father, grandmother and guardian, and opposed in part by newspaper and media organisations.

Earlier interim orders restricted publication concerning the child and were later extended to prevent identification of adult family members. The mother relied on her article 8 rights, mental-health vulnerability and the impact of publicity on the care proceedings. The media accepted protection for the child but resisted restrictions preventing reporting of the mother’s arrest and the investigation into the deaths.

The central issue was how the competing Convention rights should be balanced, and what restrictions were necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

1. Convention rights. Articles 8 and 10 were engaged. The publication of information about the family’s lifestyle, household and the circumstances of the children’s deaths constituted an interference with article 8 rights. Article 6 added nothing material to the balancing exercise because publicity concerning the investigation might assist the ascertainment of truth and thereby contribute to a fair process.
2. Balancing exercise. Applying the approach in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions of Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, neither article had presumptive priority. The court had to conduct parallel analysis, focus on the comparative importance of the particular rights, consider the justification for interference with each, and apply proportionality.
3. Public interest and intrusion. There was a substantial public interest in reporting police investigations into suspected non-accidental child deaths, the performance of public authorities and information which might encourage witnesses to come forward. That interest supported reporting that the mother had been arrested on suspicion of killing her children. It did not justify unrestricted republication of intrusive details about life within the family home.
4. Public domain. The fact that the deaths, arrest and social-services involvement had already been reported weakened the case for restraining repetition of those general facts. Detailed accounts of family life remained capable of causing significant intrusion. The possible prior publication of information identifying the child was no justification for permitting further publication of protected information.
5. Orders. The balance favoured strong protection for the child. The order was amended to prevent identification of the child and, in specified circumstances, her maternal grandmother. The public-domain proviso was removed, and restrictions were imposed on approaching or photographing the mother within 500 metres of a place where she had contact with the child.
6. The balance did not favour continuing the wider injunction sought for the mother or other adult family members. Their application was refused. The media were reminded to comply with the order, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the PCC Editors’ Code, and a renewed application could be made if circumstances changed.