PA Media Group v London Borough of Haringey & Ors

In balancing competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, a child’s best interests are a primary, but not paramount, consideration. The court must intensely focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights engaged and evaluate the likely impact of publication, including both the risk of identification and the prospect of resulting harm. The assessment must form part of a wider, parallel analysis rather than treating either right in isolation. Article 10 should not be assessed solely by reference to the worst possible reporting, nor Article 8 solely by reference to the most serious conceivable harm. Where the public interest in scrutinising a public authority outweighs the realistic but uncertain risk to children, the authority may be named, while the children’s identities remain protected.

Following a contested care hearing, the court had initially anonymised the local authority and social workers in a judgment criticising serious safeguarding failures. The press subsequently applied for the balance to be reconsidered and sought permission to identify the local authority, while accepting that the individual social workers should remain anonymous.

The court received further evidence, including an Ofsted inspection report indicating broader failings within the local authority’s disabled children’s team. The central issue was whether the public interest in naming the local authority and enabling public scrutiny outweighed the children’s Article 8 privacy and family-life interests, particularly the risk of jigsaw identification and emotional distress.

1. Application granted. The London Borough of Haringey was named as the local authority criticised in the substantive judgment. The children and family remained anonymous, and the individual social workers were not identified.
2. In the parallel analysis of Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, the children’s rights are a primary consideration, but they are not paramount. The court must conduct an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights claimed in the individual case. The nature and likely impact of identification and any resulting harm must be assessed.
3. The assessment of risk must be realistic and contextual. The court should not evaluate Article 10 solely by assuming the worst form of journalism, nor Article 8 solely by assuming the most serious possible harm. Risk necessarily involves uncertainty, and the court must consider what is likely or probable.
4. The court accepted that naming Haringey created a potential risk of identification and emotional distress, particularly for child B. That risk was strengthened by existing public information, the mother’s prior campaign, possible social-media activity and the association with a Schedule 1 offender. However, the risk was not inevitable.
5. The public interest was substantial. The evidence showed that the safeguarding failings were not an isolated aberration but reflected wider problems in the local authority’s Children with Disabilities Team. Naming the authority would facilitate public scrutiny of an institution with a significant history of criticism concerning children’s services. The press’s Article 10 rights included the public’s right to receive information about those failings.
6. The children’s continuing protection through anonymity orders and the Editors’ Code of Practice, together with the father’s ability to support and protect child B, reduced the practical consequences of publication. On the overall balance, the public interest in naming the local authority prevailed.
7. The judgment also reminded practitioners to follow the guidance governing notification of the press in remote Family Court hearings.