Q R and S (Children) (RRO Application), Re

A reporting restriction order requires a close and careful balancing of the children’s Article 8 rights against the media’s Article 10 rights. A restriction is disproportionate where it seeks to prevent publication of information that will form part of an open criminal sentencing hearing, particularly where the children’s identity, photographs and school are already protected. The court must recognise the public interest in reporting sentencing and scrutinising public authorities. It need not grant restrictions merely because media attention may cause indirect distress, especially where complete insulation from public discussion is unrealistic and practical protective measures remain available.

Hertfordshire County Council applied for a reporting restriction order concerning three children whose mother had been murdered by their father. The children were present in the family home, and two may have witnessed the killing. The application was substantially reduced during the hearing. The parties agreed restrictions preventing identification of the children, publication of their photographs and identification of the older children’s school.

The remaining dispute concerned a proposed restriction preventing publication that the children had been present, may have witnessed the killing and had been left alone with their mother’s body. The issue was whether that additional restriction was justified by the children’s welfare and Article 8 rights, having regard to the press’s Article 10 rights and the public interest in reporting the forthcoming sentencing hearing.

1. The application was granted in part. The agreed restrictions protecting the children’s names, photographs and the older children’s school remained in place. The court refused the additional restriction in paragraph 3(d).
2. The court conducted a close and careful analysis of the competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights. The children’s welfare and trauma were highly significant, but they did not automatically justify suppressing information about the circumstances of the offence.
3. The local community already knew that the mother had been killed and that the father had pleaded guilty. The children’s presence was likely to become a central feature of the open Crown Court sentencing hearing. The media therefore had an important public interest in reporting the sentencing and scrutinising the actions of public authorities, including the local authority and police.
4. The children were unlikely to encounter media reporting directly because of their age. The more likely impact would arise through peers and other adults. The local authority and foster carer could take precautions to protect them, while the agreed restrictions addressed the concerns identified by the children’s psychologist.
5. It was not possible entirely to insulate the children from the consequences of media interest. The proposed additional restriction was therefore disproportionate and was refused.