Re W (Wardship: Publication of Information)

This is an appeal by Mirror Group Newspapers Limited ("the newspaper") against the order of Mr. Justice Douglas Brown dated 20th June 1991 restraining the newspaper from publishing an article about a male ward of court. The ward was received into the care of the London Borough of Southwark in September 1989 and was made a ward of court on the application of the council in October 1990. On 27th June 1991 this court allowed an appeal by the newspaper against the order of Mr. Justice Douglas Brown and granted to the council a more limited form of injunction. I am now giving the reasons why I was persuaded that the appeal against the judge's order should be allowed. It will be appreciated, however, that in order to preserve the anonymity of the ward any reference to the facts of the case will have to be as brief as possible.

The ward is now aged 15. He has a disturbed background and it is clear that for several years he has been involved in homosexual activities with men very much older than himself. The ward remains in contact with his mother but she is unable to provide a home for him.

The boy was made a ward of court (together with a number of other minors) in October 1990. The mother of the ward was not made a party to those proceedings.

Shortly after the ward had been made a ward of court the council obtained an injunction from the High Court restraining publicity about the ward and the other minors. The terms of this injunction were later modified in November 1990, but it is unnecessary to refer to the precise terms of the modified order for the purposes of this judgment. It is relevant to notice, however, that in the evidence put before the court on behalf of the council in the autumn of 1990 it was stated that a fostering placement had been identified.

It is now plain from the evidence filed in the present proceedings that the fostering placement referred to in this earlier evidence was a placement with two men who had had a stable homosexual relationship with each other for many years.

In December 1990 the ward went to live with these two men as foster parents, though despite the existence of the wardship the wardship court was not informed that this placement had taken place. The court became aware of the placement, however, in March 1991 when the legal department of the council applied for leave for the foster parents to take the child outside the jurisdiction for a holiday.

A few weeks ago the placement of the ward with these foster parents came to the attention of the newspaper. The editor decided that the newspaper should publish an article about the matter. The newspaper's intentions, however, became known to the council who applied for and obtained an ex parte injunction to restrain publication. On 20th June 1991, after considering the evidence filed on behalf of the newspaper (which included a typescript of the proposed article) and on behalf of the council and after hearing argument inter partes, Mr. Justice Douglas Brown continued the injunction which he had previously granted ex parte.

The newspaper appealed to this court. It was argued that the effect of the wide injunction granted by Mr. Justice Douglas Brown was to prevent the publication of any article which commented on the policy of the council or which discussed the important issues which the placement of this ward raised. It was submitted that the placement of an adolescent, who had been exposed to grave homosexual abuse in the past, with male foster parents who were known to have a homosexual relationship with each other was a matter of public interest and a matter of which the public should be informed. This was particularly so where the placement had been made without the knowledge of the court and (so it was claimed) against the wishes of the ward's mother.

It was argued on behalf of the council on the other hand that even if names and addresses were excluded there was a serious risk that the article would be read by many of those who live near to or are acquainted with the ward and that these readers or some of them would identify the boy in the article with the ward. In that event, it was submitted, it was likely that the ward would suffer serious harm because of the reaction of those who made the identification. Furthermore, he would be likely to read the article himself and he would be seriously affected both by the terms of the article and by his fear of the reaction of others to the article. It was said that the placement itself, which was going well, might be put in jeopardy. We were referred to the evidence of social workers who knew the ward and in particular to the evidence of a family therapist and child care consultant who had expressed the opinion that the publication of the article could have a "devastating effect" on the ward.

Media interest surrounding children who are wards of court raises difficult issues. These issues have been addressed in a number of recent cases including in particular Re X (A Minor) [1975] Fam. 47; Re C (A Minor) [1990] Fam. 39; and Re M and N (Minors) [1990] Fam. 211. From these cases I would venture to extract the following guidelines:

(1) The court will attach great importance to safeguarding the freedom of the press. In Attorney General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109 Sir John Donaldson M.R. explained the crucial position occupied by the press as follows:

"It is because the media are the eyes and ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. Their right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public. Indeed, it is that of the general public for whom they are trustees."

(2) The court will also take account of Article...