X (A Woman Formerly Known as Mary Bell) and Another v O'brien and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1101 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ02X00666 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 21 May 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 1101 (QB)
The President
Case No: HQ02X00666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Miss Phillippa Kaufmann (instructed by Southern Stewart Walker) for the First Claimant
Mr Christopher Knox (instructed by Southern Stewart Walker) for the Second Claimant
Mr Mark Everall QC as Advocate to the Court (instructed by the Official Solicitor)
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC and Ms Dinah Rose (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for H.M. Attorney General
Hearing dates : 14/15 April 2003
Approved Judgment
IF YOU THE RECIPIENT OF THIS ORDER AND ANY OTHER PERSON WITH NOTICE OF THIS ORDER DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT OR TO BE FINED OR TO HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED
UPON hearing counsel for both the Claimants, the Official Solicitor and the Attorney General
AND UPON the Second and Third Defendants not opposing an order in the terms herein
AND UPON the First Defendant not appearing it having been impossible to serve him
AND UPON reading the court bundles filed herein
AND FURTHER to the Order made herein on 17 April and 19 September 2002
IT IS ORDERED that:
An injunction is hereby granted restraining until further order the Defendants and any person with notice of this order (whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise however or in the case of a company whether by its directors or officers or servants or agents or otherwise howsoever) from:
(1) publishing or causing to be published in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable or satellite programme service or public computer network:
(a) any information likely to lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(b) any information likely to lead the identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(c) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past present or future whereabouts (including all residential or work addresses and telephone numbers) of X which is likely to lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(d) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past present or future whereabouts (including all residential or work addresses and telephone numbers) of Y which is likely to lead to the identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(e) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice recording of X or including X, which shows or tends to show X's actual appearance after 1980, or any description of X's physical appearance, voice or accent since 1980 which is likely to lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(f) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice recording of Y or including Y, or any description of Y's physical appearance, voice or accent which is likely to lead to the identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(2) soliciting any information within paragraphs 1(1)(a) to (f) hereof at any time from any person
PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order shall of itself prevent any person
(i) publishing any particulars of information relating to any part of the proceedings before any court other than a court sitting in private
(ii) publishing any information lawfully in the public domain
(iii) soliciting information in the course of or for the purpose of the exercise by the person soliciting such information of any duty or function authorised by statute or by any court of competent jurisdiction
PARAGRAPH (1) ABOVE SHALL APPLY SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISO in relation to any internet service provider ("ISP"), its employees and agents:
(a) an ISP shall not be in breach of this injunction unless it, or any of its employees or agents:
(i) knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
(ii) knew that the material was to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be placed on its servers or was likely to be accessed by its service; and in either case
(iii) failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication;
(b) an employee or agent of an ISP shall not be in breach of the injunction unless he or it:
(i) knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
(ii) knew that the material was to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be placed on its servers or was likely to be accessed via its service; and in either case
(iii) failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication and to induce the ISP to prevent the publication;
(c) as ISP, employee or agent shall be considered to know anything which he or it would have known if he or it had taken reasonable steps to find out;
(d) "taking all reasonable steps to prevent the publication" includes the taking of all reasonable steps to remove the material from the ISP's servers or to block access to the material.
Proviso (ii) to paragraph 1 of this order shall not apply so as to permit the publication of material falling within paragraphs 1(1)(a) to (f) of this order merely on the ground that such material has at any time been published on the internet and/or outside England and Wales.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that:
(a) the injunctive orders made in respect of the Claimants on 12 May 1998 and on 17 April 2002 are of no further effect (save for any material reporting restrictions); and
(b) this order is not to be read as in any way restricting or otherwise derogating from the Claimants' rights to confidentiality in such matters as their detailed medical and therapeutic treatment.
Copies of this order endorsed with a penal notice be served by the Claimants' solicitors on:
(a) such newspapers and sound or television broadcasting or cable or satellite programme services and public computer networks as they may think fit, in the case of a public computer network, by e-mail and in each other case by facsimile transmission or pre-paid first class post addressed to the Editor in the case of a newspaper or the Senior News Editor in the case of a broadcasting or cable or satellite programme service, or person responsible for any public computer network in the case of that network; and
(b) on such other persons as the Claimants' solicitors may think fit in each case by personal service.
Any person affected by the injunction set out at paragraph 1 above is at liberty to apply upon 24 hours notice in writing to all parties. Any application to be made to the President (if available).
There shall be no order as to the costs of these proceedings.
Dated 21 st day of May 2003.
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
A mother (X, formerly known as Mary Bell) and her daughter (Y) seek lifetime anonymity from the intrusions of the media and any disclosure of their identities, their addresses or any details about their lives which might identify them. Their reasons for seeking draconian protective orders from the High Court are different but the basis for seeking such orders arises from the same set of facts. In 1968 Mary Bell killed two small children. The deaths of the three and four year olds were made the more shocking by the fact that she was at the time 11 years old. Mary Bell was convicted of the manslaughter of each of the children by reason of diminished responsibility. She was sentenced to detention for life under the provisions of section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
X and Y are separately represented, X by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Phillippa Kaufmann, Y by Christopher Knox. The father of Y is the first defendant but has not taken any part in these proceedings. Two major newspaper groups were also made defendants. Desmond Browne QC, on their behalf, made it clear at an early stage of these proceedings that the two newspaper groups did not oppose in principle the grant of injunctions to protect the anonymity of X and Y and suggested the wording of a draft order. The two newspaper groups, although large, do not represent the media generally. In the absence of any application from any other part of the media to be represented or heard, I invited the Attorney General to intervene to advise the court on the issues of public interest. I am very grateful to the Attorney General for instructing Andrew Caldecott QC and Dinah Rose and for their most helpful written and oral submissions. Until the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) took over the Official Solicitor's responsibilities for representing the children in family proceedings in April 2001, the Official Solicitor has been the guardian of Y in her wardship proceedings and instructed Mark Everall QC as Advocate to the Court. I am also grateful to him for his equally helpful submissions in a difficult and worrying case.
The background facts
At her trial Mary Bell's name was disclosed to the public. After conviction she spent 12 years in young offender institutions and subsequently in prison. On her release in 1980 she was provided, at her request, with a new identity. There have been three major periods when X's identity and whereabouts were either discovered or at risk of discovery. The first was after she formed a settled relationship with the first defendant and gave birth to Y on the 25 th May 1984. Y was made a ward of court five days later on the application of the local authority in the area where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Opq v Bjm
-
Petition Of A V. The Secretary Of State For The Home Department
...v News Group Newspapers [2001] Fam 430, Dame Butler-Sloss P at para 38; Carr v News Group Newspapers [2005] EWHC 971 (QB); X v O'Brien [2003] EMLR 37). The Tribunal decisions showed no proper basis on which to conclude that there was a serious risk to the petitioner from reporting in the pr......
-
Re A (Reporting Restriction Order)
...injunctions have been granted, on the basis of evidence risk to mental health, to protect an adult's rights under article 8: see X (formerly Bell) v O'Brien [2003] EWHC 1101 (QB) and Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 971 (QB). 23 The first step is therefore to identify the ECHR r......
-
HM Attorney General for England and Wales v British Broadcasting Corporation
...since been exercised to protect new identities given to Mary Bell, who had killed two children in 1968 ( X (formerly Bell) v O'Brien [2003] EWHC 1101 (QB), [2003] EMLR 37 (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P)); Maxine Carr, who had provided a false alibi for the Soham murderer Ian Huntley ( Car......
-
Clashing Rights, the Welfare of the Child and the Human Rights Act
...their release (Ve n a bl e s vMGN Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 908 and X, A WomanFormerlyknown asMary Bell, Y vSO,NewsGroupNewspapersLtd,MGNLtd[2003] 2 FCR 686).7 On 29 October 2003 Patricia Hewitt and Lord Falconer announced the inception of the newCommission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). I......
-
Press Freedom: Injunctions Binding the World
...Venables and Thompson v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001]2 WLR 1038 and X (a woman formerly know as Mary Bell) v O’Brien [2003]EWHC 1101, [2003] EMLR 37. Orders in these cases were made underthe UK law of breach of confidence, rather than any freestanding causeof action under the European Co......
-
The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Activism: Judicial Conduct of International Relations and Child Abduction
...vNews Group Newspapers Ltd [2001]Fam 430, and X (A Woman Formerly Known as Mary Bell), Y vSO, News Group Newspapers Ltd,MGN Ltd [2003] EWHC QB 1101.Constitutional Limits of Judicial ActivismNovember 2003]833rThe Modern Law Review Limited the protocol. This would certainly include any of the......