Cumbria County Council v M & Ors

When determining a reporting restriction application, the court must balance the rights under articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR without giving either presumptive precedence. The assessment must focus intensely on the particular facts, especially the welfare and vulnerability of children. Restrictions should be no wider than necessary. The court must distinguish between measures needed to prevent identification and a blanket prohibition on reporting. Where criminal or coronial proceedings remain uncertain, the court should not attempt to anticipate every possible development. A serious public interest may favour publication of the identity of an adult suspected of grave conduct, subject to the competing risks and welfare considerations.

Cumbria County Council sought a reporting restriction order in ongoing family proceedings. The proposed order would have anonymised the family and relevant agencies for 15 years. Media organisations opposed the breadth of the proposed restrictions, arguing that a narrower order could protect the children while preserving the public’s right to know.

The application arose against the background of a child’s death, possible future criminal proceedings, a reopened inquest and continuing care proceedings. The central issues were whether the surviving children, their mother, the deceased child and the father should be identified, and how widely the restriction should extend geographically.

1. The application was determined by balancing articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, giving neither right presumptive precedence and focusing intensely on the unusual facts. The court followed the approach identified in Re S (a child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593 (HL).

2. The surviving children’s identities required protection. The restriction properly extended to indirect identification through their names, addresses, schools and nurseries. The mother’s name, photograph and identity were also protected at least until the October final hearing, when it would be known whether the children could return to her care.

3. The geographic restriction should extend to Barrow-in-Furness, because identifying that small and specific community created a further risk of identifying the children. The court rejected a restriction wider than that area. A blanket ban on the press could not be assumed to provide dependable protection, and less restrictive methods of supporting the children remained available.

4. The court refused, at this stage, to withhold the names of the deceased child and the father. Naming the deceased child could increase the risk that the surviving children would learn of the circumstances from uncontrolled sources. Nevertheless, the public interest in a serious matter being in the public domain outweighed the father’s asserted risks, which were no greater than those faced by others suspected of comparable conduct. The public and local community were entitled to make their own decisions about him.

5. A powerful argument would be required before imposing restrictions capable of preventing a public trial or inquest. The court could not foresee and regulate every possible future development. The draft order was therefore to be revised to reflect the rulings.

not stated in the judgment.