AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors

An interim injunction may restrain publication and conduct where the evidence establishes a strongly arguable case of harassment and serious interference with private and family life. Harassment includes conduct causing alarm or distress and requires a course of conduct involving at least two occasions. The court must balance freedom of expression against the affected person’s rights under article 8 of the Convention. Where disclosure is restrained to prevent intrusion or harassment, the balance may favour protection of the home and family, having regard to section 12 of the Human Rights Act.

The applicant sought continuation of an interim injunction after journalists attended his home, contacted him repeatedly, took photographs and questioned him and his family about a property he let to members of the family of Mr Othman, otherwise known as Abu Qatada. The respondents, including News Group Newspapers Ltd and persons unknown, were notified but did not appear or oppose the order.

The original out-of-hours order had been granted on 15 February 2012. The present hearing concerned the continuation and proper formulation of the injunction, including restrictions on publication, harassment, approaching the applicant’s address and communicating with him.

1. Interim injunction continued. On the evidence, there was a strongly arguable case that an order was required to protect the applicant’s home and family from intrusion and harassment. The order prohibited publication of the applicant’s name and address, images identifying his address, and images of occupiers or invitees within the property. It also restrained harassment, threatening or interfering with occupiers or invitees, approaching within 100 yards of the address, and communicating with the applicant.
2. The relevant statutory framework was the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Section 1 prohibits a course of conduct amounting to harassment where the defendant knows or ought to know that it amounts to harassment. The objective test is whether a reasonable person possessing the same information would regard the conduct as harassment. The statutory defence applies where, in the particular circumstances, pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
3. Harassment includes alarming a person or causing distress. A course of conduct concerning one person requires conduct on at least two occasions. The evidence of repeated attendance, calls, knocking at the door, photography and questioning was capable of satisfying that threshold and supporting civil relief under section 3.
4. The court had regard to article 8 of the ECHR and sections 6 and 12 of the HRA. The publication restraint was directed at preventing intrusion or harassment and was not imposed merely because the information was sensitive. On that basis, the balance favoured protecting respect for the applicant’s home and family life.
5. Interim orders could be varied on the application of any affected party. Since the media organisations had received notice of the hearing but had neither appeared nor indicated an intention to oppose continuation, no further return date was required. Permission was granted to amend the proceedings to name News Group Newspapers Ltd and persons unknown as defendants. The matter was to proceed by service of the Particulars of Claim.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.