British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MUNBY |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J0725-1 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | NO: FD/00P10636 |
| Date | 25 July 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J0725-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Munby
NO: FD/00P10636
FAMILY DIVISION
Mr MICHAEL TUGENDHAT QC and Mr RICHARD PARKES appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Mr GORDON MURDOCH QC and Miss ANNEMARIE HARRIS appared on behalf of the applicant.
th July 2000
MR JUSTICE MUNBYI am grateful to you all for coming here this afternoon. Bobby Kelly, as you know, is 16 years old. He is missing and no one seems to know where he is. It is important that he should be found. In recent years he lived with his maternal grandmother, Ruth Kelly, at her home in Romford. By all accounts he was doing well at school and was planning to begin a course of higher education at a local college in the autumn.
On 27th June 2000 Bobby went shopping with his grandmother in Romford. Members of a movement known as the "Jesus Christians" were there in the town centre proclaiming the movement's faith and beliefs. Bobby gave them a small donation and collected some literature. Later that same day he returned to the town to talk to members of the movement. Bobby resolved to leave home at once and to devote himself entirely to the philosophy and the way of life of the movement. Naturally enough his grandmother and other members of his family were extremely upset and puzzled by Bobby's sudden decision. It was, to them, very much out of character. They nevertheless hoped that given time Bobby would come home. He has not done so. That was four weeks ago.
Presented with further information that Bobby might accompany members of the movement abroad, his grandmother decided to prevent that happening by making Bobby a ward of court. As his grandmother, and someone who had been caring for him, she was clearly entitled to take that step. Bobby has therefore been a ward of court since 12th July 2000. Because he is a ward Bobby may not travel beyond England and Wales without the court's permission. Equally no important step in his life may be taken without the court's approval. That includes where and with whom he should live. Efforts have been made to ascertain Bobby's whereabouts and his true feelings in this matter, thus far to no avail.
On 13th July 2000 another judge of the Family Division, Sumner J, enlisted the help of the media and members of the public in tracing Bobby. The case received a lot of publicity in the national press, on radio and on television. Since then Bobby has communicated from time to time with members of the media and his grandmother by way of e-mail and telephone call. He has stated that he is happy enough and does not understand what all the fuss is about.
Bobby's actual whereabouts remain completely unknown, although he is still believed to be in this country. His grandmother is worried that, in reality, all is far from well. She is concerned that his views as stated have been coloured or influenced by members of the movement and that they might be exerting influence on him to avoid contact with the court. Her concerns are not going to go away until such time as Bobby does come forward to allay them and to let her know where he is living. She is, in my view, rightly concerned for his well-being; it would be extraordinary were the situation otherwise. Until such time as Bobby is found this court has a very real difficulty in determining what it is that he actually wants.
The Official Solicitor, Mr Lawrence Oates, was appointed by the court to act as Bobby's legal representative on 12th July 2000. The Official Solicitor is a civil servant and has a staff of about 100. He is completely neutral and independent and has an unrivalled experience in representing teenagers in situations such as that in which Bobby finds himself. The Official Solicitor will give Bobby impartial and confidential legal advice and will put Bobby's own views before the court. Should Bobby so wish he could be represented by someone other than the Official Solicitor. There is no difficulty whatsoever in Bobby's views being fully presented to the court, including Bobby giving evidence, if he chooses to do so, whether orally, on paper, or both. Bobby will be permitted to play the fullest part in these proceedings, of that I can assure him. He should know that he has absolutely nothing to fear by coming forward at this stage. That is my very clear message to him.
His family will not be cross or upset, of that I am 100 per cent certain. All that they want to know, as indeed I do, is that he is safe and well, and what he wants for the future. The Official Solicitor also needs to have this information to ensure that he is properly represented.
For my part, I now appeal to Bobby to come forward and to those who are presently caring for him to help him to do so. At the same time I ask you all to assist Bobby's grandmother, the Official Solicitor and the court to find Bobby as soon as possible. These courts rely on the willingness of the press and members of the public to comply with appeals of the sort that I have made today. That help has always unfailingly been given in the past, as I am sure it will be in this instance.
Doubtless there will be renewed debate in the media about the rights or wrong of young people aligning themselves with religious movements, just as there will be about the rights and freedoms of mature young people to decide to do so. Freedom to express and to practise one's own religious beliefs are important in any democratic society.
I am not presently concerned with any such debate. I am simply concerned that Bobby should be found as soon as possible in order that his true wishes and feelings can be ascertained.
Should you come into possession of any information relating to the whereabouts of Bobby, please contact the court on 0207–947-6713. Equally, Bobby, should you read or hear any part of this statement, I do urge you to make contact with your legal representative, the Official Solicitor. You have your own independent lawyer and her name is Miss Zoe De. Her details are as follows:
The Office of the Official Solicitor,
Chancery Lane,
London WC2A 1DD
Telephone: 0207–911-7114
Fax: 0207–911-7105
E-mail: dez@ofjsol.fsnet.co.uk.
Until such time as you make contact with her, it is very difficult for me to address your grandmother's concerns properly.
That is all I have to say for the time being, except to say that I should be grateful if the media could give the widest possible publicity to the telephone and other numbers I have mentioned so that Bobby will know how to get in touch, if, as I very much hope, he decides to.
I repeat my thanks to you all for coming here today.
( Short adjournment)
MR JUSTICE MUNBYI am giving this judgment in open court for two reasons. It involves some important points of law and practice relating to the grant in the Family Division of injunctions restraining the freedom of the media to publish and broadcast. It arises in a matter which has already been the subject of widespread public interest and concern, namely the disappearance of Bobby Kelly, about whom I have just made a statement in open court to the press, the public and the media.
The Facts
Bobby Kelly was born on 5th April 1984 and is thus just over 16 years old. He has lived with his grandmother in Romford since February 1998. Very suddenly on 27th June 2000 he left home and has been missing ever since. I can best set out the story in his grandmother's own words:
"On 27th June 2000 Bobby came shopping with me in Romford. Outside Marks and Spencer he stopped to talk to a person who was handing out leaflets and gave him a small donation. I asked him what he was doing and he told me it was all right because the group was Christians. Bobby went back into Romford later that day to speak to these people again. Until 27th June 2000 they had never met Bobby before. That very afternoon Bobby returned home and informed me that he was going with them. He collected some food and clothing and left immediately.
Since then he has telephoned me and informed me that he must give up everything, including his family. He was wanting to clear his room and give all his possessions away but I would not let him. He has telephoned me on several occasions and is sounding very strange and most unlike the Bobby I know. He has called at my home but he is always in the company of the group and I have been unable to speak to him alone."
So far as I am aware Bobby has been with these people ever since. They are a religious group—some would call them a cult but I prefer for the moment to use the more neutral expression—called "Jesus Christians".
We do not know exactly what was in the leaflet but I have been shown part of their literature. It is a document headed "Forsaking All". After referring to the events recorded in the Gospel according to St Luke, c 5, vv 2–11, and c 9, vv 59–62, it continues as follows:
"God refuses to take second place to anything or anyone. He will not let you put any other gods before him, not your old job, or your old boss, nor even your old family and friends. God is now your Boss and he has a new job for you that will not wait. This is God's first test for every would-be disciple. To see if you love him enough to put him first by forsaking all immediately to follow him now."
It seems that that is exactly what Bobby did. The document continues:
"God will not tolerate you putting anything else before him and his work. If you can bring the boss and business with you, fine. But quite obviously the disciples' father was unwilling to leave his boat and business and all those nice new fish and follow Jesus along with them-and we never really hear of him again. The father who stuck by the business vanished into oblivion, whereas his sons wandered off with a perfect Stranger and made history, helping millions of souls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v Sunday Newspapers Ltd
... ... FAM 430 EUROPEAN CONVENTION HUMAN RIGHTS ART 10(2) KELLY v BRITISH BROADCATING CORPORATION 2001 FAM 59 2001 2 WLR 253 ... shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises ... 92 2. The exercise of these ... ...
-
The British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and 'X' and 'Y'
... ... UK (1991) 14 EHRR 153 at paragraphs [59] to [60] and Kelly v BBC [2001] 1 FLR 197 per Munby J. at 212 B and 229 ... 52 It is not, as was suggested by one of the social workers, ... ...
-
Re a Local Authority (Inquiry: Restraint on publication)
... ... Munby J helpfully summarised them in Kelly v BBC [2001] 1 All ER 323 at page 341; [2001] 1 FLR 197 at page 216 ... ...
-
R (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Contact with Media)
... ... : “The Secretary of State appreciates that broadcasting has a short turn-around period and that your client is anxious to be able ... in Kelly v BBC [2001] Fam 59 , 90. Indeed, it is in part this fact which causes ... ...