In the matter of an application by HM Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review (Oswald Brown)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Deeny J |
| Judgment Date | 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] NIQB 94 |
| Year | 2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 21 December 2006 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2006] NIQB 94 Ref: DEEB4732
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 21/12/2006
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
----------
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HM SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (OSWALD BROWN)
---------
DEENY J
[1] The first point with which I think it is necessary to deal is the reporting
of this matter which comes before the court in a slightly unusual way.
Initially the application was to be in chambers, but counsel for the Secretary
of State said that was an inadvertent carry over from a precedent and Mr
McMillan who appeared with Mr McCloskey for the Secretary of State on
Friday when before me applied to delete those words and the reporting of the
matter subject to one point was made open, but relying on the discretion of
the experienced court reporter who was present. It seems to me that the
Respondent having obtained not insignificant publicity and aroused
legitimate public interest over the period of the hunger strike, that for me now
to anonymise the proceedings would be futile. It would be obvious to anyone
that references to In re O B referred to Oswald Brown. I think it would be
unfair to the media to try and distinguish between what they were entitled to
report on and what not. I bear in mind the dictum of Lord McDermott in the
Ministry of Education v McPherson that the order of the court should not beat
upon the air. Miss Gibson also helpfully reminds me that non-reporting is not
mandatory in the circumstances where there is public interest and she cites
the case of Simms in that regard and I think that is applicable, so in the
circumstances I remove the reporting restrictions. I acknowledge that there is
some interference with the Article 8 rights of the applicant but that has been
brought upon himself while he did have mental capacity by commencing this
fast and I think it is a necessary interference in the circumstances. In doing
that, I bear in mind the particular matters that have been averted to in open
court.
To continue reading
Request your trial