Torbay Borough Council v News Group Newspapers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Munby,Associated Newspapers Limited |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 99HCT5246 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 04 December 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Munby
Case No: 99HCT5246
FD03P02594
In The Matter Of Angela Roddy (a Minor)
In The Matter Of X (a Minor)
In The Matter Of Y (a Minor)
And In The Matter Of An Application By
Associated Newspapers Limited
Mr Mark Warby QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the applicant
Associated Newspapers Limited
Mr Lee Arnot (instructed by Legal Services) for the claimant local authority
The defendant was neither present nor represented
Hearing date: 28 November 2003
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment was handed down in private but the judgment in the form in which it here appears may be reported either in full or in part. There is no restriction on identifying any person or organisation named in the judgment (including Torbay Borough Council) but attention is drawn to:
(a) the terms of the injunctions set out in paragraph [90];
(b) the fact that those injunctions prohibit the identification of the children referred to in the judgment as X and Y;
(c) the fact that the injunction set out in paragraph 6(i) of the order has now expired and has not been extended: see paragraph [92].
Mr Justice Munby
Angela Roddy was born on 4 December 1986. In 1999, when only 12 years old, she became pregnant. The putative father was a boy of about the same age who I will refer to as X. The local authority —it is in south-west England —began care proceedings on the basis that Angela was beyond the control of her parents. Her pregnancy came to public attention amidst some controversy when it became known that the Roman Catholic church had, as the press reported it, paid her not to abort her baby. The local authority obtained from Bracewell J on 21 September 1999 an order which, amongst other things, protected the identities of both Angela and X. That did not, of course, prevent the Scottish media from publishing stories, albeit that neither Angela nor X nor the local authority were named. (I have been shown the articles published in The Scottish Express on 11 October 1999, in the Scottish Daily Mail, on 11, 12 and 13 October 1999 and in the Daily Record on 12 October 1999. The tenor of the debate at that time is encapsulated in the following headlines: "Church to pay girl aged 12 to keep her baby;" "Was Church right to offer her money?" "Prosecute the boy who made my girl of 12 pregnant;" "Cardinal's cash will buy us pram —Dad of girl, 12, welcomes church aid.") The order made by Bracewell J was replaced by an order made by Johnson J on 26 October 1999 which continued to protect the identities of all those involved.
On 27 January 2000 Angela gave birth to a daughter who I will refer to as Y. The same local authority thereupon began care proceedings in respect of Y. Angela was separately represented in the care proceedings because she did not agree with the guardian's views. She was represented by an experienced children's solicitor who I will refer to as B. On 25 May 2000 Bracewell J made care orders in relation to both Angela and Y. The care plan for Y was for her adoption; Angela was to remain in foster care. Angela opposed the plan for Y's adoption, but on 28 September 2001 a circuit judge made an order under the Adoption Act 1976 dispensing with her consent. Y was adopted. I know nothing of Y's adoptive placement save that she and her adoptive parents live somewhere in England. There is continuing indirect contact between Y and Angela: as recently as 25 November 2003 Angela was sent an update and a photograph of Y.
The orders made by Bracewell J on 25 May 2000 did not long remain secret. On 7 June 2000 a local newspaper published a front-page story under the headline "School girl to have child put up for adoption." The article identified the local authority. On 2 July 2000 the Mail on Sunday published a story under the headline "Distraught girl of 13 must give up her baby." The opening paragraph reported that "A devastated 13-year-old mother went on the run last week in protest after social services took away her baby", this being, according to the newspaper, "her desperate cry for help after she was forced to say goodbye to her five-month-old daughter for the last time". The article continued:
"The tragic story of this family, torn apart by social services and the legal process cannot be told in full: an injunction prevents the parents, who believe an injustice has been done, from speaking out. The future of three generations has been decided by the authorities behind a wall of silence. Social services, who took the girl into care last year, rightly insisted the young mother and teenage father should not be identified. But they have gone further, persuading a High Court judge to issue a draconian gagging order on everyone, including the girl's parents."
On 7 July 2000 Associated Newspapers Limited ("ANL"), the publishers of, inter alia, the Scottish Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail, applied to me to vary the terms of the order made by Johnson J. I discharged my brother's order and made an order contra mundum in standard form. That order, operative until 4 December 2004 (Angela's 18 th birthday), was intended to protect the identities of both Angela and X but not —at least not explicitly —the identity of Y. But since it restrained the solicitation from a wide range of people of "any information relating to Angela (other than information already in the public domain)" it had the indirect, if unintended, effect of also protecting Y from media curiosity. My order provided that anyone affected by the injunction was at liberty to apply to the court on 48 hours notice to vary or discharge the order.
The injunction I had granted nonetheless made it possible for the Mail on Sunday to publish on 9 July 2000 a front-page story (continued over three inside pages) under the headline "Did family lose child over anti abortion beliefs?" The tenor of the story appears from the opening paragraphs of the article:
"It appears to be a shocking example of official arrogance. A case in which parents claim their daughter and granddaughter were taken from them because of their mainstream Christian beliefs.
But, equally disturbingly, the facts could never be aired publicly before today.
On Friday, The Mail on Sunday successfully contested a draconian gagging order, obtained by a council in the West of England, barring all public debate of this extraordinary story. The court victory has finally restored to the parents the basic right to express their anguish about the removal of their 13-year-old daughter and the baby she gave birth to in January.
The girl's father believes his family was broken up for ideological reasons: that social workers removed his pregnant daughter because, as a Catholic, he believes abortion is wrong.
But he has been unable to bring his plight to the attention of the public. Under the gagging order the media was banned from publishing anything he had to say. It meant the social workers' actions remained shrouded in secrecy.
The case of the family —who cannot be identified —is a complex one which cries out for public scrutiny. It raises crucial questions, including the role of Social Services, tolerance of religious beliefs and questions of choice.
But it is also a personal tragedy."
There was also a strongly worded editorial comment under the headline "Law that hides a cruel intolerance".
Angela, as I have indicated, was originally in foster care. She returned home to live with her parents in August 2002. On 20 January 2003 she applied for the discharge of the care order and on 19 September 2003 it was discharged, with the agreement of the local authority. Again, she was represented by B. Shortly after that Angela's father made an approach to the Mail on Sunday. In November 2003 Angela made her own approach to the newspaper. In a witness statement dated 26 November 2003 she says that she wanted to talk about her experience of the care system and is doing this "because I want people to know what it is like to go through the care system and the consequences of having unprotected sex." She says, "I am happy to be named and photographed for the purposes of the newspaper article, and I have considered the consequences of this."
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 solicitors acting for ANL wrote to the local authority giving notice of their client's intention to apply for a variation of the order I had made on 7 July 2000. The letter indicated that what was proposed was a variation to permit the publication of information with Angela's consent, but without any change to the injunction insofar as it protected X's identity. The letter said that:
"our client has not sought to modify the substance of any of the injunctions in so far as they affect [X]. It is not our client's intention to publish anything which would infringe any of the existing orders in so far as they relate to him."
In a second letter the same day ANL's solicitors wrote:
"we considered whether notice should be given to anyone other than yourselves. We have concluded that as no other party is affected by the proposed variation that this is not necessary. If you disagree, we trust that you will inform us of this as soon as possible and explain your reasoning."
In a further letter sent later the same day ANL's solicitor wrote:
"to confirm that my client will not name [Y] or [X] and has no intention of including anything in its article which might lead to either individual being identified. The intention is for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re J (A Child)
...information which it is entitled to publish. As I explained in Re Roddy (A child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 949, para [89]: "A judge can assess what is lawful or unlawful, a judge in the Family Division may be called on to assess whet......
-
CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
...3 FCR 145, [1999] 2 FLR 905, CA. Roddy (a child) (identification: restriction on publication), Re, Torbay BC v News Group Newspapers[2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 1 FCR 481. S (adult patient) (inherent jurisdiction: family life), Re[2002] EWHC 2278 (Fam), [2003] 1 FLR 292. Selmouni v France......
-
Re Stedman
... ... Between: East Sussex County Council and Penelope Stedman and ... and Denis Patten and News Group Newspapers Limited and ... ...
-
Re K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity)
...to speak out publicly. I repeat in this context the point I made in Re Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), [2004] 1 FCR 481 at para [83]. In my judgment, the workings of the family justice system and, very importantly, the views about the sys......
-
Accommodating Children's Rights in a Post Human Rights Act Era
...the proposi-92 [2001] 2 FLR 1190. See discussion above.93 Eg inter alia: Re Roddy (AChild) (Identi¢cation: Restrictionon Publication)[2003] EWHC2927 (Fam)[2004] 2 FLR 949 and Mabon vMabon and Others[20 05] EWCACiv 634 [2 005] 3 WLR 460.94 See Re P (medical treatment: best interests) [2003] ......