Katherine Elizabeth Kerner (on her own behalf and in a representative capacity for Jack Robert Michael Kerner, a child) (Intended Claimant) v (1) WX (2) YZ (Persons Unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimant and her son at their home on 22 January 2015) (Intended Defendants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 128 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 27 January 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 128 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Warby
In the Matter of an Intended Action
Tim Lawson-Cruttenden of Richard Sladeand Associates for the Intended Claimant
The Intended defendants did not appear and were not represented
Hearing date: 22 January 2015
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
On the afternoon of 22 January 2015 I heard an application for an injunction to restrain harassment by persons unknown of Katherine Kerner and her son Jack, aged 9, in various ways including by publication. The application was made by Mr Lawson-Cruttenden on what was described as an emergency basis following events that morning outside the home shared by Katherine and Jack Kerner in Kent.
The background to the application is a case which has received wide publicity in recent days. Mrs Kerner's husband Stuart, a teacher, was convicted on 5 December 2014 of two offences of sexual activity with a child in breach of trust. On 14 January 2015 he was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. The sentence has been the subject of considerable comment. A witness statement of Mrs Kerner explained that her husband was the subject of a great deal of press interest, but she did not seek any orders on his behalf. I was told that he and she were not living together. Her application was limited to protecting herself and her son from what she describes as 'paparazzi activity'.
The application was prompted by a series of incidents starting at 6:50am on 22 January, when Mrs Kerner was preparing to leave home to take her son to Breakfast Club at his school, before going to work at a primary school where she is acting head teacher. The statement said that as she left the house Mrs Kerner noticed two cars parked opposite the house. Two men jumped out of them, rushed over to her with photographic equipment and long lenses and immediately engaged in aggressively taking photographs. She ran back into the house and asked them to go away but they did not. One remained for over an hour, continually taking photographs including taking 'intrusive photographs through the front bedroom window' and photographs of Jack.
Mrs Kerner prepared a sign with the words 'Under cl 4 of Editors' Code of Practice Cease and Desist from harassing me and my child.' After about an hour she took this outside and held it in front of her face. The man who had remained took pictures of her with the sign. Asked which publication he was working for and who he was he answered 'freelance' and said nothing further. The man photographed Jack as well. Eventually, at about 8.20am he walked across the road made a phone call and drove away.
Mrs Kerner's statement said that she and her son were "bruised and shocked" by the events they have had to cope with in connection with her husband's conviction and sentence. She described the events of the morning as a "shocking series of incidents which caused me to be harassed and caused myself and my young son anxiety, alarm and distress". She says Jack was "clearly harassed by the events to which we were both subjected". She expressed the view that there was no valid reason for paying attention to her or her son, and expressed concern that these incidents may be repeated. She said she did not know the identities of the two men, though she took some photographs and has the registration number of one of the cars.
On Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bianca Cameron (Claimant/Appellant) v Naveed Hussain (First Defendant) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd (Second Defendant/Respondent)
...for injustice to the claimants if I do not": [22]. 100 Bloomsbury Publishing has been followed in a number of cases. In Kerner v WX [2015] EWHC 128 (QB); [2015] EWHC (QB) the court granted an injunction restraining harassment of a woman and her son after they had been photographed in what......
-
Brett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation and Publication of the Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com (Defendant(s)
...publication date (as in the Bloomsbury case), or harassment (as in Stone & Williams v "WXY" [2012] EWHC 3184 (QB), and Kerner v WX [2015] EWHC 128 (QB)). In each of the last two cases the defendants were described as "Persons Unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of" th......
-
Katherine Elizabeth Kerner (on her own behalf and in a representative capacity for Jack Robert Michael Kerner, a child) v (1) WX (2) YZ (Persons Unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimant and her son at their home on 22 January 2015)
...and her son. The background and reasons for granting that injunction are set out in the judgment I handed down on of 27 January 2015, [2015] EWHC 128 (QB). The claimant now applies for that injunction to be continued. 2 The claimant has made a further witness statement explaining the steps......
-
Katharine Elizabeth Kerner (on her own behalf and in a representative capacity for Jack Robert Michael Kerner, a child) v (1) WX (2) YZ (Persons Unknown responsible for pursuing and/or taking photographs of the Claimant and her son at their home on 22 January 2015)
...on 22 January, in the early morning and afterwards, in a way that I found was likely to be held at a trial to amount to harassment: [2015] EWHC 128 (QB). At that time the claimant's husband was not living at the family home. 3 The injunction I granted was against those two men, designated ......