The British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and 'X' and 'Y'
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ryder |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: WG 18, 19, 21, 24 and 28 of 1990 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 24 November 2005 |
[2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ryder
Case Nos: WG 18, 19, 21, 24 and 28 of 1990
Mr Adam Wolanski (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the BBC
Mr Anthony Hayden QC and Ms Yvonne Coppel (instructed by the Borough Solicitor) for Rochdale MBC and X
Ms Jane Walker (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors, Manchester) for Y
Hearing dates: 12th and 13th September 2005
On the 7th March 1991 Mr Justice Douglas Brown gave judgment in open court in wardship proceedings concerning 20 children from 6 families, known as 'the Rochdale satanic abuse case'. The judgment is reported as Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council v. A [1991] 2 FLR 192. All bar 4 of the children were returned to or remained in the care of their families and the allegations of satanic and ritual abuse were found not to have been made out. Injunctions were made to protect the identities of the children concerned.
It is the protection afforded by those injunctions that forms the background to these renewed proceedings. The key issue before this court is whether continuing protection should be afforded to two social workers, X and Y, whose identities were not revealed in the open court judgment that concluded the original proceedings.
The terms of the injunctions that continue in force (as distinct from the protections this court has put in place with the agreement of the parties pending decisions being made in these proceedings) are as follows:
"Any person whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise howsoever or in the case of a company by its directors, officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever (is restrained) from
1) publishing in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable programme service or by satellite any picture being or including a picture of the several minors whose names are set out in the schedule hereto or any particulars or pictures calculated to lead to the identification of the minors as being or as having been wards of this court or
2) causing or procuring any publication or broadcast of the type defined in paragraph (1) above or
3) soliciting any information relating to the said minors (other than information in the public domain) from —
a. the said minors or any of them
b. any natural person who has had the care of the minors since the minors became wards of court
c. the staff or pupils of any school which the said minors attend or have attended
d. the staff or inmates of any institution or children's home at which the said minors reside or have resided…"
In respect of one of the families the non solicitation clause was drawn wider to include relatives, carers and parents.
On the 22nd May 2005 the BBC applied for an order that would have the effect of permitting the disclosure of evidence given in the original proceedings to the BBC, the solicitation of information relating to those proceedings and disclosure to the general public of the identities of X and Y, the social workers who were granted anonymity by Douglas Brown J.
The purpose of the BBC's application is to facilitate the production of a documentary that the court has been told the BBC intended to broadcast later this year.
The local authority and the two social workers concerned have agreed with the BBC and the representatives of the former wards the disclosure of materials to the former wards, its use by the BBC and the relaxation of the prohibition against solicitation of information from the former wards among others. That involved a detailed consideration by the local authority of the materials that existed against the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. The court was able to assist the parties to reach agreement by the appointment of a clinical assessor whose instruction was to consider whether harm was likely to be caused to the data protection subjects by the disclosure requested.
At the end of the process there remain only two issues a) whether the two social workers can be named in the documentary and b) whether video footage which includes the images of the social workers as well as the children can be broadcast. The extent of the disclosure that has been agreed, evidenced by detailed orders that have been agreed by the parties and approved by the court, is such that the former wards and the BBC have been able to see and read almost all of the materials that were used in the proceedings. That which has been excluded can fairly be characterised by the description that it is intimate family business that may not have been known between generations and which is not relevant to the applications now before the court.
On the 16th August 2005 Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council issued an application on their own behalf and on behalf of one of the two social workers for an injunction restraining the BBC from publication of the names of both social workers or any material that might lead to their identification on the grounds that the social workers and their families would be harmed personally and professionally and it would not be in the public interest. On the 1st September 2005 an application was made on behalf of the other social worker in identical terms. Although one social worker had the advantage of representation through solicitors appointed by her union, the other was afforded the same protection through the local authority's legal department.
I have had the benefit of hearing detailed submissions on behalf of the BBC, the local authority and both social workers. I am very grateful to leading and junior counsel for the benefit of their skill and industry. I have also taken steps to hear representations from the former wards. They are separately represented by solicitors who protect their interests in particular as to their discussions and agreements with the BBC and the separate civil compensation proceedings that have been instituted against the local authority.
I record the fact that each of the relevant adults concerned have come to binding agreements with the BBC about the use of their confidential information and I am satisfied that these protections need not be further investigated by this court in these proceedings. There are former wards and other adults who were concerned in the proceedings whose confidential information is not to be revealed and I am satisfied that their interests have likewise been protected.
I have considered detailed written evidence filed on behalf of the BBC, the local authority, both social workers and their respective employers. Opportunities were provided to call and examine that evidence but by a proper and proportionate use of the court's permission to file evidence in reply, no examination proved to be necessary. I have not been asked to hear oral evidence and credibility is not in issue.
There is a relevant part of the judgment of the 7th March 1991 that is not to be found in the case report but which can be read in the transcript of the original proceedings. There the learned judge gave the following reason for the two social workers being granted anonymity:
"I do not give their names, because to do so could well lead to the identification of these children"
All of the professionals directly involved with the children with the exception of X and Y were named in public. The anonymity ruling was coincident with the purpose and detailed terms of the injunctions made at the end of the proceedings although it should be noted that an anonymity direction was not included in any order and hence was neither brought to the attention of any person who was not present in court nor, in particular, any media organisation.
In fact neither social worker played any further part in the lives of any of the children or their families and both left the employment of the local authority for other social care bodies. They remain in employments that are unconnected with the former wards and the court has been told, and it is not in issue, that both have had successful careers in the social care professions where their activities have positively benefited their professional colleagues and the vulnerable adults and children they have assisted.
By the time the BBC made its application to this court, the purpose of the original injunctions had been achieved in that the former wards were no longer children and save as to the specific agreements that have been come to, they are adults who wish to be identified. It is not suggested that any of the former wards are incapacitated in law and accordingly this court's role in respect of the maintenance and/or enforcement of their anonymity must of necessity be limited. Indeed, where there is no evidence that the adults concerned lack the capacity to give consent, absent other arguments, the court must permit them to be identified. A failure to do so would be an unjustified interference with their Article 8 and 10 rights: Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 949 per Munby J. at paragraphs [37], [56] and [59] and E v. Channel Four, News International Ltd and St Helens Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1144 per Munby J. at paragraphs [48] to [52].
If the former wards can be identified, then it is certainly arguable that the ancillary protection afforded to the social workers falls away. Although the injunctions were expressed to continue in force until further order, the former wards have made clear and informed decisions upon advice to waive their privacy. Accordingly, no-one has sought in these proceedings to argue from first principles whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louise Tickle v Herefordshire County Council
...series of earlier cases in which judges have declined to grant orders preventing the naming of social workers. In BBC v Rochdale MBC [2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam) Ryder J carried out a detailed Re S balancing exercise between the competing rights and held that there was no pressing social need to......
-
Re Webster (A Child)
...other parties), Re[2002] 2 FCR 32, [2001] 2 FLR 1017. B v UK[2001] 2 FCR 221, [2001] 2 FLR 261, ECt HR. BBC v Rochdale Metropolitan BC[2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR Bergens Tidende v Norway (2001) 31 EHRR 430, [2000] ECHR 26132/95, ECt HR. Blunkett v Quinn[2004] EWHC 2816 (Fam), [2005......
-
Bristol City Council v NGN Ltd and Others
...3 WLR 776, HL. B (a child) (disclosure), Re[2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 3 FCR 1, [2004] 2 FLR 142. BBC v Rochdale Metropolitan BC[2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR Campbell v MGN Ltd[2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 All ER 995, [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] 2 WLR 1232. CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd[2......
-
Re Ward
...the point. 124 Ms Wilson also directed my attention to the important observations of Ryder J in British Broadcasting Company v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y [2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 101, at para [32]: “The fact that witnesses may be named illustrates the fac......