O'Riordan v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin) |
| Date | 19 May 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Before Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Crane
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Criminal law - identification of a child victim - compatibility with right to freedom of expression - child reporting restrictions justified
Legislation preventing the publication of information likely to lead members of the public to identify a child victim of alleged gross indecency was not disproportionate or in breach of the right of freedom of expression.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held when dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by the defendant, Marie O'Riordan, editor of Marie Claire, from the decision of District Judge Caroline Tubbs at Bow Street Magistrates Court on August 18, 2004 that she had a case to answer that she was in breach of sections 1 and 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as amended by section 48 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Mr Richard Spearman, QC and Mr Andrew Sharland for the defendant; Miss Sarah Whitehouse for the prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE ROSE said that on July 12, 2003 a girl aged 12 went missing from her home and travelled to Germany with a man aged 30.
A warrant was issued for the arrest of the man and the police enlisted the assistance of national and international media in an attempt to trace the girl's whereabouts.
There were articles in most national newspapers and news items on television. The child was returned to the UK and a man was arrested.
The police issued a statement to the media requesting that future reporting be restricted and an e-mail was circulated to those in contact with the police press office.
That did not include either Marie Claire or IPC Media Ltd, the owner and publisher of the magazine.
Subsequently, an information was laid against the man for inciting a child under 16 to commit an act of gross indecency contrary to the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996.
It was an allegation to which the statutory prohibition on publication of the child's name applied under the 1992 Act, as amended.
The police sent a further e-mail to all those reporters who had made inquiries about the girl explaining that a warrant had been issued and that any identification of the man would lead to the identification of the girl, and outlining the laws protecting the girl's identity.
Between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Z v 1) Commerzbank AG 2) Mr Lars Vogelmann 3) Ms Hope Jackson 4) Mr Gary Booth 5) Ms Yogita Mehta 6) Q
...would ordinarily be made by the victim (perhaps to the police, a social worker, or to a parent or carer), whereas in O’Riordan v DPP [2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin) … when the abductor was being interviewed by the police a number of sexual offences came to light. When he was arrested for an offenc......
-
Stephen Bullman v High Court in Dublin (Ireland)
...or “real chance” that the information disclosed will lead to the identification of the complainant by members of the public: see e.g. O'Riordan v DPP [2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin), [29]; NCL v MME [2020] EWHC 2594 (QB), 14 Second, one concern of the Gardaí appears to be that identification of ......
-
HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation
...see Attorney General v Greater Manchester Newspapers Ltd, The Times, December 7, 2001, [20] (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P), endorsed in O'Riordan v DPP [2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin), where the Divisional Court rejected a submission that “likely to lead to” was too imprecise to satisfy Conventi......
-
Ncl v Mme
...(d) the identity of any place of work, and (e) any still or moving picture of the person.” 22 In paragraph [29] of his judgment in O'Riordan v DPP [2005] EWHC 1240 (Admin), Rose LJ said as follows: “A useful definition of “likely to lead to identification” is to be found in the judgment of......