Re C (A Minor) (No. 2) (Wardship: Publication of Information)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BALCOMBE,LORD JUSTICE NICHOLLS |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1989 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Civ J0426-3 |
| Docket Number | 89/0403 |
| Date | 26 April 1989 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1989] EWCA Civ J0426-3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE WARD)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Raster of the Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Balcombe
Lord Justice Nicholls
89/0403
MR. CHARLES GRAY and MS. HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Messrs. Swepstone Walsh) appeared for the Applicants (Mail Newspapers PLC).
MR. JAMES MUNBY Q.C. (instructed by The Official Solicitor) appeared for the Official Solicitor.
MR. ANGUS MOON (instructed by Messrs. T. I. Clough & Co., Bradford) appeared for the Mother.
MR. JOHN LESLIE (instructed by Solicitor to the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council) appeared for the Local Authority.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS: This appeal is, in a sense, a postscript to that which we heard and determined on 20th April. However, it would be a mistake to think that it is not equally important in its own right.
The order of Ward J included the following wide-ranging injunction:
"It is ordered that an injunction be made restraining any person from making or causing or permitting to be made any enquiry directed to ascertaining the identity of
(1) The Ward
(2) The parents
(3) The Local Authority
(4) The Area Health Authority, hospital or medical practitioners or staff having or having had care of the ward.
It is further ordered that an injunction be made restraining the media by itself, servants, agents or otherwise from publishing any material which will identify or assist in identifying any of the persons or bodies mentioned in the aforementioned injunction."
None of the parties to the main appeal raised any objection to this injunction and I only referred to it in my judgment because one of the law reporters sensibly and helpfully inquired whether they would be "publishing any material which will identify or assist in identifying any of the persons or bodies mentioned in the aforementioned injunction" if, in reporting our judgments, they identified the solicitors and counsel who had appeared on the appeal. One of the counsel had a practice which was concentrated in the Leeds area where Ward J. had heard the case and given judgment and the solicitors, other than the Official Solicitor, had local addresses. After seeking the assistance of counsel and the solicitors concerned, we concluded that, as is not unusual in wardship cases, the names of the solicitors should not be included in any law report, but that there were no sufficient grounds for extending this anonymity to counsel, which would have represented a departure from the settled practice. On the other hand, in the light of the fact that "C"'s expectation of life was short and that the injunction had been imposed in the interests of her welfare, I said that the point could he looked at again at a later date.
After we had given judgment, Mail Newspapers PLC, the proprietors of the Daily Mail and of The Mail on Sunday, to whom I will refer as "The Mail", applied to us to review the width and terms of the injunction. Since they were bound by it and had not been heard in opposition to it, we readily agreed to their being heard and expedited the hearing which took place less than 24 hours after we had given judgment on the main appeal. In the light of that application we reconsidered the injunctive order by Ward J. and substituted one in different terms. At the same time we announced that, in the light of the importance of our ruling, we proposed to put our reasons into writing and give them at a later date. This we now do.
The new injunction which we imposed was in the following terms:
"It is further ordered that an injunction be made restraining, until further order, any person, whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, or in the case of a company, whether by its directors or officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from:
1. Publishing the name or address or otherwise identifying:
(a) the Ward;
(b) the Parents;
(c) any Hospital at which the Ward is being or has been treated; or
(d) any natural person having or who has had the care of the Ward.
2. Soliciting any information relating to the Ward or her parents (other than information already in the public domain) from the parents of the Ward, any staff at any such hospital as mentioned in para. 1(c) above or any such person as is mentioned in para. 1(d) above, provided that no breach of this Order shall be committed by any person who does no more than enquire of another person as to whether that person is a person comprised in para. 1(d) above;
3. Publishing any such information as is referred to in para. 2 above obtained directly or indirectly from any person referred to in para. 2 above."
The basis of the Mail's application was that the matters dealt with by Ward J. and by this Court on appeal raised important issues of legitimate public interest and that the Mail wished to report the facts and background of the case as fully and accurately as possible so that discussion and comment could be properly informed and soundly based. Whilst it was accepted that neither "C" nor her parents should be identified, it was submitted that all newspapers and radio and television media ought to be free to publish photographs of all who were or had been involved in the care and treatment of "C", to make inquiries of them and others as to her care and treatment and as to the circumstances which led to her being made a ward of court and to publish the results of those inquiries.
In considering this application it is of fundamental importance to distinguish between the public interest and the public's curiosity. The public interest may demand the overriding of rights to which the courts would otherwise give effect. The public's curiosity, understandable and indeed in some circumstances admirable though it may be, can never have this effect. So far as the media are concerned, the public interest in investigation, publication and comment may in some circumstances override the rights of individuals to confidentiality, but an understandable and sometimes reasonable desire to satisfy the public's curiosity never can.
The origin of the wardship jurisdiction is the duty of the Crown to protect its subjects and particularly children who are the generations of the future. It is exercised by the courts on behalf of the Crown (see per Latey J. in In re "X" (a Minor) (1975) Fam. 47, 52). The machinery for its exercise is an application to make the child a ward of court. Thereafter, the court is entitled and bound in appropriate cases to make decisions in the interests of the child which override the rights of its parents. Furthermore, the court is entitled, and bound in appropriate cases, to make orders affecting third parties which the parents could not themselves have made. Obvious examples are orders forbidding the publication of information about the ward or the ward's family circumstances. Consistently with this, applications to the court in wardship proceedings are made within the privacy of the court sitting in chambers and the decision of the court and its reasons for that decision are not normally given in open court.
In the exceptional circumstances of this case, Ward J. took the view that the public interest required that he disclose his decision and the reasons for that decision. In this he was clearly right. On appeal we varied his decision in one respect and decided that there was a public interest in slightly greater disclosure of the facts. For this reason, I disclosed the greater part of the Professor's opinion in my judgment.
I now have to consider whether there is any public interest in further disclosure. I also have to give the reasons which in my opinion justify the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to prohibit identification, the soliciting of information and the publication of information in the terms of the injunctive order which we have made.
The nature of "C"'s treatment and its objectives have been fully disclosed. There remain the family circumstances which led, quite independently of her medical condition, to her being made a ward of court. Those circumstances are no different from many other situations in which it is right that a child should be made a ward of court but which, in accordance with the settled practice of the courts, are not disclosed to the public. I cannot accept that there is any public interest which requires their disclosure in this particular case.
I consider that the information disclosed in the judgment of Ward J. and of this court on the main appeal provides all necessary material for discussion and comment on the sole issue of genuine public interest, namely, the vitally important question of how a child should be cared for and treated in the tragic situation of Baby "C".
However, this conclusion does not of itself justify the injunction which the learned judge imposed or that which we substituted. Unless the public interest or a private right enforceable by the courts requires an injunction, the courts cannot intervene. On the facts of this case such intervention can only be justified upon one or other or a combination of two bases. These are (1) that the injunction is necessary for the welfare of "C" or for safeguarding her rights and (2) that the injunction is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.
The learned judge I think approached the matter on the basis that, whilst the public interest required that he give judgment in open court in order to disclose his decision and the factual and legal basis for that decision, he ought so far as possible to maintain the normal position in wardship that the proceedings are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Z (A Minor) (Freedom of Publication)
...to interfere for the protection of the infant by making whatever order might be appropriate." 23In Re C. (Wardship: Treatment) (No 2) [1990] Fam. 39, Lord Donaldson of Lymington said at p.46:- "The origin of the wardship jurisdiction is the duty of the Crown to protect its subjects and part......
-
Harris v Harris; Attorney General v Harris
...[1990] 2 QB 397, [1989] 3 All ER 833, [1990] 2 WLR 76, CA. C (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) (No 2), Re [1990] FCR 220, [1990] Fam 39, [1989] 2 All ER 791, [1989] 3 WLR 252, [1990] 1 FLR 263, CA. C (a minor), Re (15 March 1990, unreported), Fam D. De Haes v Belgium (1997) 25 EHRR 1,......
-
Re Z (A Minor) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication)
...Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680. C (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) (No 2), Re [1990] FCR 220; [1990] Fam 39; [1989] 3 WLR 252; [1989] 2 All ER E (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), Re[1992] 2 FCR 219. Falkland (Viscount) v Bertie (1696) 2 Vern ......
-
Re X (a child) (injunctions restraining publication)
...Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 316, [1987] 1 WLR 1248, Ch D, CA and HL. C (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) (No 2), Re [1990] FCR 220, [1990] Fam 39, [1989] 2 All ER 791, [1989] 3 WLR 252, [1990] 1 FLR 263, Coco v A N Clarke (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41. Kelly v BBC[2000] 3 FCR 509, [2001] 1 Al......
-
Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act
...restricted to wardship . . .’ . She relied on Lord Donaldsonof Lymington MRwho said in In ReC (A Minor) (Wardship: MedicalTreatment)No 2 [1990]Fam 39,46 that wardship‘is the machinery for its exercise’,ibid 223.29 [1975] Fam 47.30 [1994] Fam 192, 204.31 See the ¢ndings of the President of t......
-
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats: privacy, injunctions and possums: an analysis of the high court's decision.
...involving medical treatment (Slater v Bissett (1986) 69 ACTR 25, 28-30 (Kelly J); In re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) (No 2) [1990] Fam 39, 48 (Lord Donaldson MR), 55 (Nicholls LJ)); a case involving pharmaceuticals (R v Department of Health; Ex parte Source Informatics Ltd [200......