Re A (Reporting Restriction Order)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BAKER |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: FS11C00084 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 08 July 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Baker
Case No: FS11C00084
In the Matter of a (A Minor)
And in the Matter of the Children Act
In the Matter of an Application for a Reporting Restriction Order
Lucinda Davis for the local authority
Frances Judd QC and Margaret Pine-Coffin for the First Respondent
Douglas Taylor for the Second Respondent
Penny Howe for the Third Respondent
Stephen Cotton for the Fourth Respondent
Adam Wolanski (instructed by the Legal Deprtments of NGN Ltd, MGN Ltd and Newsquest Ld.) on behalf of the Respondents to the application for a reporting restriction order
(The names of the other solicitors are omitted in the interests of confidentiality.)
Hearing date: 21st June 2011
This judgment is being handed down in private on 8 July 2011. It consists of 28 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report of this judgment no person other than the advocates or the solicitors for the Respondents to the application for a reporting restriction order (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
MR. JUSTICE BAKER:
This is an application in care proceedings concerning a child, "A", born [a date] 2010 for a reporting restriction order restraining publication of information concerning the family following the tragic deaths of A's two brothers. The parties supporting the application seek an order that would preclude, amongst other things, the naming of various members of the family, including not only A, but also adult family members, including the mother of all three children who has been arrested on suspicion of murdering the two boys. The order sought is one that would apply contra mundum, that is to say it would be of general effect and bind any person having notice of it.
The application is opposed in part by representatives of the media. They accept that the name of the surviving child A should not be published, but object to the order extending to cover the adult family members.
BACKGROUND
The mother is a twenty-five-year-old woman with a very troubled background who has had extensive dealings with social services and a number of other agencies for most all her life. She has given birth to three children – B, born [a date] 2006, J, born [a date] 2008, and A, born [a date] 2010. B was conceived as a result of a very brief relationship and his father has had no further involvement with the family. J and A have the same father, F, who met the mother in a psychiatric unit. Both the mother and F suffer ongoing long term psychiatric and psychological problems. The mother has cognitive difficulties and a history of depression and self harm. F has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.
It is the local authority's case that, throughout the lives of the children, the mother struggled to look after them. When he was about one year old, B was placed with his maternal grandmother under a residence order. Thereafter, he had regular contact with his mother, and after their births, his half-siblings, J and A. Because of the mother's long-term problems, social services were involved with the family from the outset. J and A were placed on the child protection register in the category of neglect, and subsequently made the subject of child protection plans.
In the first few days of 2011, J was taken to hospital on two occasions but subsequently was discharged home. Then, in the early hours of [a date] January 2011, he was taken to hospital by ambulance in a lifeless condition and pronounced dead shortly after arrival at hospital. The mother was interviewed by police and a post-mortem examination carried out. A strategy meeting of professionals convened on [a date] January concluded that there were no grounds for carrying out any investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 into the circumstances of J's death. A continued living with her mother, subject to the child protection plan, and the local authority continued to visit the family.
On [a date] April 2011, B, then aged four and a half, collapsed at his grandmother's home while his grandmother was out and he and A were being cared for by their mother. He was taken to hospital but died three days later on [a date] April. A preliminary post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was "undetermined pending further investigation". Extensive pathological investigations were commissioned from a number of specialists whose reports are expected in August 2011.
Following B's death, the mother was arrested on suspicion of his murder. She was interviewed under caution and released on police bail until [a date] August. After her release, she was detained in a psychiatric unit under section 136 of the Mental Health Act because of concern that she would harm herself.
On [a date] April, the Family Proceedings Court made an emergency protection order in respect of A, and the local authority placed her in the care of foster parents who live in the same town as the mother and maternal grandmother. The local authority started care proceedings which were transferred immediately to the county court and thence to the High Court. On [a date] April, HH Judge Marston, sitting as a judge of the Family Division, placed A under an interim care order and gave various directions, including joining the father and maternal grandmother as parties to the proceedings.
The mother remained in a very disturbed state. When discharged from the psychiatric unit, she moved into in sheltered accommodation. A psychological report dated 24 May discloses that, in addition to her cognitive problems, she is suffering from a significant depressive disorder which "adversely affects her ability to interact with people, communicate with them, and answer probing or leading questions". The psychologist expressed the opinion that, in her condition, she would be unable to manage questions posed by the media, and would be likely to make false statements as a result of being in a highly suggestible state. The psychologist described the mother as being in "a state of extreme grief" and expressed concerns that prolonged pressure from the media may put her at risk of self harm. He concludes: "I cannot stress strongly enough how vulnerable [the mother] is at the present time".
In early May, it became apparent that the press were indeed interested in this case. A reporter from The Sun knocked on the maternal grandmother's door wanting to ask questions about the death of the children. The newspaper also contacted the police and social services seeking information. On [a date] May, the police issued a press release stating that the police
"can confirm that they are investigating the sudden death of two brothers…earlier this year. The two-year-old boy died in January, and his four year old brother died in April. Post- mortem examinations were carried out on both children and proved inconclusive. Police are currently awaiting the results of further tests to establish if their death should be treated as suspicious. A report has been submitted to HM Coroner. Following the deaths, police arrested a twenty-five-year old woman…on suspicion of murder. She has been questioned by detectives from the…constabulary's major crimes department and released on police bail until August [a date] while police carry out additional enquiries and await the results of further tests."
The press interest also prompted the local authority to apply for a reporting restriction order. In support of this application, the allocated social worker filed a statement saying inter alia "that the publishing of any information which could identify A or her present or future placements, the fact of the care proceedings, or the detail contained within the care proceedings will be detrimental to A's welfare". The application was served on the media under the CopyDirect service in accordance with the President's Direction and CAFCASS Practice Note dated [a date] March 2005. On [a date] May, Her Honour Judge Sullivan QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, made an order, paragraph 3 of which prohibited the publishing or broadcasting of (a) the name and address of A, her carers, any individual having day to day care of or medical responsibility of A, and any residential home or hospital or other establishment at which she was residing or being treated; (b) any picture of A, a carer or any such establishment, and, (c) any other particulars or information relating to A. The order was, however, subject to the qualification that such publication was prohibited "IF BUT ONLY IF [it] is likely to lead to the identification of the child as being the child of [the mother or father]". It should be noted, therefore, the list of persons whose identification was precluded did not at that stage include either the mother or the father or the maternal grandmother. The order also precluded any person from seeking information relating to the child from a list of named persons including the child herself, her foster carers, or any other carer. Again, that list did not include the mother, father or maternal grandmother. The order was subject to the proviso that it did not prevent the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HRH Prince Louis of Luxembourg v HRH Princess Tessy of Luxembourg and another
...and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, art 6(1), art 8, art 8(2), art 10, art 10(2). Cases referred to A (reporting restriction order),Re[2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam), [2011] 3 FCR 176, [2012] 1 FLR A v A, B v B[2000] 1 FCR 577, [2000] 1 FLR 701. Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616. Alkaya v Turkey (......
-
H v A (No.2)
...interests must accordingly be considered first, although they can be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations ( Re J (Reporting Restriction) [2014] 1 FLR 531 at [22]). This position reflects the fact that it is not only the rights of the subject child that are engaged in ......
-
Bristol City Council v NGN Ltd and Others
...aggrieved by this practice (see [24], below). Cases referred to in judgmentA (a child) (application for reporting restrictions), Re[2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam), [2011] 3 FCR 176, [2012] 1 FLR 239. A Local Authority v W[2005] EWHC 1564 (Fam), [2007] 3 FCR 69, [2006] 1 FLR 1. A-G v Guardian Newspap......
-
Re J (A Child)
...(Fam), [2004] EMLR 607, para [66]. A little over seven years later, Baker J, as he had then become, recalled that occasion in Re A (Reporting Restriction Order) [2011] EWHC 1764 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 239, para [35]: "It is sobering to recall that the judgment in F v Newsquest and Others was ......