AB v (Application for Reporting Restrictions: Inquest)

Applications for reporting restrictions affecting freedom of expression require proper and timely notice. Where the respondent is absent, the court has no jurisdiction to grant relief unless the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or there are compelling reasons for non-notification under section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Service of a bare application notice, without the supporting evidence and full argument, is inadequate. The court should not receive secret evidence or argument from one party. An application under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 should ordinarily be made to the coroner, who has primary jurisdiction to determine it.

Worcestershire County Council applied for reporting restrictions concerning an inquest into the death in custody of a 17-year-old girl. The proposed restrictions were intended to protect her surviving siblings, who were vulnerable children and did not know the circumstances of her death.

The application notice was served on media organisations, but the supporting evidence and legal submissions were not supplied in full. The girl’s parents and other interested parties were not notified. The central issues were whether the notice requirements under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Civil Procedure Rules had been satisfied, and whether the application properly lay under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or instead invoked the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

1. Application dismissed. The requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were jurisdictional. Because the application concerned restrictions on reporting and interfered with Article 10 rights, relief could not be granted in the absence of the respondent unless the Council had taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or compelling reasons for non-notification existed.
2. The Council had not given proper notice. It served only the bare fact of an application and did not provide the media with the inquest identity, supporting evidence or full argument. It gave no notice to the girl’s parents or other obvious interested parties. There were no compelling reasons for withholding proper notice. Responsible media organisations could be expected to respect confidentiality pending the hearing. Birmingham City Council v Afsar [2019] EWHC 1560 (QB) was followed as to the strict approach to applications engaging section 12.
3. It was impermissible for one party to enjoy privileged access to the judge by placing before the court material not disclosed to the persons affected. The court relied on the principle stated in Kelly v BBC [2001] Fam 59 that parties must have an opportunity to see and address the court on material placed before it.
4. If the application were one under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, it should be made to the coroner, who had jurisdiction and a superior understanding of the inquest issues. The High Court could review an unlawful exercise of that jurisdiction, but should not unnecessarily make the original decision without all proper parties and adversarial argument. Section 39 was unlikely to assist because the siblings would not be witnesses.
5. The true application appeared to concern the court’s inherent jurisdiction to balance Article 8 and Article 10 rights. That wider basis had not been notified to the media. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the application.

First-instance decision. No appeal or earlier decision is stated in the judgment.