Re F. (orse. A.) (A Minor) (Publication of Information)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN,LORD JUSTICE GEOFFREY LANE |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J1014-2 |
| Date | 14 October 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1976] EWCA Civ J1014-2
The Master of the Rolls,
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Scarman and
Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Appeal of Respondents from Order of Mr. Justice Tudor Evans, London, May 4, 1976.)
THE RIGHT HON. SIR PETER RAWLINSON, Q.C. and MR C. GRAY, (instructed by Messrs. Simmons & Simmons) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Daily Telegraph and its Editor).
MR LEON BRITTAN, (instructed by Messrs. Oswald Hickson, Collier & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Evening Mail and its Editor).
MR JOHN WAITE, Q.C. and MR NICHOLAS WILSON, (instructed by The Official Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Official Solicitor acting as guardian ad litem).
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (LORD DENNING): This is about a distressed father and mother. They have an errant daughter who has worried them greatly.
Last year, 1975, when the daughter was only 15, and still at school, she got into the clutches of a man much older than herself. He was about 28. He was a very bad character. He had a long criminal record with eighteen convictions. He took drugs and wore long hair. He was one of a "hippy" gang, who did no work but squatted in empty premises. He gave this young girl drugs. He had sexual intercourse with her, knowing that she was only 15. She thought that she was in love with him.
For a long time the father and mother knew nothing of her association with this man. Her school reports were satisfactory and she was an affectionate and dutiful daughter.
But then in the late autumn of 1975 the parents got to know of the association. One night the daughter went to a party at a neighbour's house. The man was there. Police officers raided the house and found her there with drugs. They went and told the parents. Another time the man took a Jaguar car without the owner's consent and took the daughter and two other girls for a drive in it. The police chased them, got hold of the man, and charged him with taking the car unlawfully. (He was let out on bail, but afterwards sentenced to six months' imprisonment for it). The father and mother tried to stop their daughter seeing the man, but she persisted. The climax came on 12th February, 1976. She told her mother that she had been seeing the man every night. The mother was so upset that she slapped her face. The daughter ran off out of the house and never returned.
The parents were greatly worried. They went to a solicitor. On his advice, on 16th February, 1976, they applied for their daughter to be made a ward of court. Mr. Justice Arnold made the order at once. He ordered the daughter to return home. He ordered the man not to harbour her. He appointed the Official Solicitor as her guardian ad litem. That order by Mr. Justice Arnold was a temporary order pending a summons to be heard on 18th February, 1976.
Two days later the summons was heard. Mr. Justice Dunn then ordered that the daughter was to remain a ward of court until she was 18. He directed that she was to reside at the house of her parents or at such other place as the Official Solicitor should approve. And he ordered the man not to harbour her.
Soon afterwards a social worker found the girl and placed her in a hostel run by the local council. There was a meeting with the parents. They tried to persuade their daughter to give up the man and to return home. But she refused. After much talk, it was arranged that the daughter should remain at the hostel. It specialised in the care of adolescent girls.
The Social Worker's Report.
On 3rd March, 1976, the social worker made a report to the Official Solicitor. In it she recommended that the girl should remain at the hostel, but spend part of each weekend at home. She concluded her report by this paragraph. It figures largely in this case: "……On the question of the girl's association with the man, I do not know this man and only what the girl and her parents have told me. In spite of his age and criminal record, the girl tells me that she loves him and wouldbe extremely upset were she not allowed to see him for two years. In view of the strength of her feelings, I feel it may be appropriate for the man to be allowed to visit the girl at the hostel, under the supervision of the hostel staff, and it is my belief that this might prevent the girl from taking more devious means to contact him, should contact be totally denied."
On 11th March, 1976, the Official Solicitor made a report to the court. It was a long report and at the end he submitted that the girl be committed to the care of the local authority in pursuance of the statutory provisions in that behalf. If this were done, the local authority would have her under their care instead of the parents.
The Official Solicitor sent his report to the court, together with the social worker's report. They were also sent to the parents.
THE REACTION OF THE PARENTS.
Now, here comes the point. The parents were very upset when they read those reports. They were especially worried about the recommendation that the man should continue to visit the girl. They had read of another case of a girl in care - of the age of 15 - who was said to have worked as a prostitute while in the care of a local authority So they decided to tell the DailyTelegraph. They telephoned the newspaper and a reporter came to see them. They told him all about it. They showed him the first order of Mr. Justice Arnold (the 2-day order which expired on 18th February, 1976). They showed him the Official Solicitor's report and the social worker's report. They told the reporter (as they believed) that the girl had only been made a ward of court temporarily. The reporter thought that thegirl was no longer a ward of court. He thought that the wardship proceedings had expired when the girl was found and moved into the council hostel. The father was employed as a solicitor's clerk. The reporter asked him whether there were any legal proceedings then in progress which would prevent the newspaper using the story. The father said there were no proceedings in progress at the time. The reporter also got into touch with the Director of Social Services for the local council. He was not familiar with the case, but discussed the matter in general terms, and said he would look into it.
THE ARTICLE IN THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
On Monday, 5th April, 1976, the DailyTelegraph published an article. It was headed: "Jailed lover should visit hostel girl, 16." It went on: "The parents of a 16-year old school-girl, who was placed in a council hostel to stop her association with a criminal, are fighting a social worker's recommendation that she should be allowed to meet the man who is now in prison…." The article quoted the words from the social worker's report, which I have set out above. It then went on: "In February, before R was sent to prison, f's parents had her made a temporary ward of court and obtained a High Court injunction restraining him temporarily from harbouring or contacting her." I will not read more. It is a long article giving the whole story, much of which I have already stated.
The Editor of the DailyTelegraph has made an affidavit explaining why they published the article, and his evidence was accepted: "The story was published as a result of an appeal to the paper by the parents, and no one of the DailyTelegraph was aware prior to the publication that the girl concerned was stilla ward of court." He added that, in his opinion, "as Editor of the DailyTelegraph such cases raise issues of great concern which require in the public interest to be discussed and debated."
THE ARTICLE IN THE EVENING MAIL.
Many people read the article in the DailyTelegraph. The Official Solicitor read it and decided to take advice upon it. The reporters of a local newspaper, the EveningMail, read it and made careful inquiries about its accuracy. They got in touch with the local authority, who said that it was "factual". They telephoned the Official Solicitor and were told that he was guardian ad litem, but no more. They were not told that the girl was a ward of court. They decided to publish the story, said the editor, "because of its topicality in relation to current cases involving social-service workers' treatment of the sexual relationship of girls…. and also that we have a responsibility to our readers to inquire into the quality of judgment exercised by the officers and staff of the local authority."
So the EveningMail on that very evening published an article in similar terms to the article in the DailyTelegraph.
The Official Solicitor took action. He applied to the court. It came before Mr. Justice Tudor Evans. He granted an injunction against both newspapers. He held that both had been guilty of a contempt of court. He said that under Section 12 (1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 the publication of information about a ward of court was absolutely prohibited. But, as the newspaper apologised, he made no order except that they should pay the costs.
THE APPEAL BY THE NEWSPAPERS
The newspapers appeal to this court. The appeal raises an important question as to proceedings in chambers. How far is a newspaper at liberty to report them and to make comments on them?...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re M and N (Wards) (Publication of Information)
- Attorney General v Pelling
-
Oxfordshire County Council v P
...599; [1970] 1 All ER 1088. D (Minors) (Wardship: Disclosure), Re[1992] 1 FCR 297. F (orse A) (A Minor) (Publication of Information), Re [1977] Fam 58; [1976] 3 WLR 813; [1977] 1 All ER 114. K (Minors) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re[1994] 2 FCR 805. Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [......
-
Charles v Skeete
...S. 12 (1) (a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 was the subject of construction by the Court of Appeal in Re F (a minor) [1977] 1 All E.R. 114. It, reads:– “The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private [that is in camera or in chambers] ......
-
Courts of Appeal
...atthetime(havingtakenallreasonablecare) hedidnotknowandhadnoreasontosuspectthatproceedingswerependingorimminent.In re F(1976,3W.L.R.813)was a case inwhichTudorEvans J.heldtwonewspapersandtheireditorstobe incontemptofcourtinthefollowingcircumstances.A girlof15beganassociatingwithamalecrimina......