Birmingham City Council v Riaz & Ors (Rev 3)

The High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions protecting a child from child sexual exploitation where the statutory framework does not provide an adequate remedy. Such orders may also prohibit respondents from approaching other vulnerable females under 18, provided the restrictions are clear, necessary, proportionate and realistically enforceable.

Reporting restriction orders are exceptional. Speculative or unsupported evidence of risk is insufficient to displace open justice and freedom of expression. The court must balance the competing Convention rights, giving substantial weight to public reporting of proceedings and the identification of persons against whom adverse findings have been made.

Birmingham City Council applied under the inherent jurisdiction for injunctions against ten adult men whom it alleged had sexually exploited AB, a vulnerable 17-year-old girl. The police had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to secure criminal convictions. The court also considered reporting restriction orders protecting AB and restricting identification of the respondents.

Some respondents consented to orders; others contested the applications or failed to attend. The central issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the injunctions, whether the evidence satisfied the civil standard, whether the proposed restrictions were proportionate and enforceable, and whether anonymity should continue.

1. Jurisdiction and proof. The local authority bore the burden of proving its allegations. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. Subject to the leave requirement in section 100(3) of the Children Act 1989, the inherent jurisdiction remained available to protect children where the issues could not be resolved under the statutory scheme.
2. Findings and injunctions. The court found that all ten respondents had engaged in AB’s sexual exploitation. The inherent jurisdiction could be used to make protective injunctions preventing contact with AB, and also preventing approaches to previously unknown females under 18 in specified public places. The wider restrictions were justified by the respondents’ conduct and the identified risk to other vulnerable young females.
3. The terms of an injunction must be fair, necessary and proportionate to the risks proved. They must identify clearly what is prohibited and must have a real prospect of enforcement. The absence of objection by a respondent does not relieve the court of that duty. The court was satisfied that the proposed orders met those requirements and that enforcement by the local authority and police was realistic.
4. Reporting restrictions. Evidence of risk to the respondents from publicity was speculative and unsupported. There was no credible evidence of a real risk to life engaging article 2. Even if article 2 were engaged, little weight could be given to it on the evidence. Distress, embarrassment or anxiety to respondents or their families did not justify anonymity in proceedings heard in open court.
5. The balance under articles 8 and 10 fell decisively in favour of the press and broadcast media. The reporting restriction orders protecting the respondents were discharged. The restriction protecting AB was continued, but the question of lifelong anonymity was adjourned for further consideration. No costs order was made.