ZY and Paul Higgins and Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 8 |
| Date | 25 January 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2013 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2013] NIQB 8 Ref:
McCL8724
Approved version of ex tempore judgment of the Cou rt. Delivered:
25/01/13
[
(subject to editorial corrections – authorised for dissemination 30/01/13)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
______
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
ZY
Plaintiff:
and
PAUL HIGGINS
and
NORTHERN IRELAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS SERVICE
Defendants:
__________
McCLOSKEY J
[1] The central question to be determined in this action is whether the Plaintiff’s
right to life under Article 2 ECHR, protected in domestic law by the Human Rights
Act 1998, qualifies him for the remedy of an injunction restraining publication of any
information which might disclose his identity. The injunction sought would be of
the permanent kind, to be contrasted with the extant interim injunction. The first
named Defendant is a journalist by profession who earns his living as a Court
Reporter. The second named Defendant is the public authority responsible for the
organisation and administration of Courts and Tribunals in Northern Ireland. It is a
party to these proceedings as a result of the central involvement in the litigation
matrix of a Crown Court Judge’s order in the circumstances explained more fully
infra.
2
Litigation Framework
[2] I preface the following outline with the observation that much of the evidence
received by the Court was uncontentious.
[3] The Plaintiff is a male person aged between 20 and 30 years. The proceedings
which he brings have their origins in his prosecution and conviction in the Crown
Court. He has had two relevant interactions with the police. The first occurred in
August 2010 at his home, stimulated by a complaint that a young teenage girl had
engaged in online contact of a sexual nature, via Facebook, with a person residing
there. Although computers, mobile phones and memory sticks were seized by the
police, no arrest or prosecution materialised.
[4] On 2nd September 2011 the Plaintiff was arrested by the police. The impetus
for this was a fresh complaint made by a female person of an attempt to blackmail
her in relation to an indecent video recording made when she was aged 15 years.
The prosecution of the Plaintiff for the offences of blackmail, engaging in sexual
activity with a minor and possessing indecent images of children ensued. In due
course he was committed for trial on a total of 17 such offences. On 19th December
2011, at his first remand hearing, Belfast Magistrates’ Court ordered that:
“… no details pertaining to the identification of the
Defendant be published in any publication of any sort or
released to the media.”
I shall describe this as “the anonymity order”. It is evident from the text of this Order,
together with certain medical evidence [infra], that it was clearly designed to protect
the Plaintiff’s right to life under Article 2 ECHR. The Order was subsequently
renewed. The net effect was that during a period of approximately one year, until
the conclusion of his trial, there was no publication of the Plaintiff’s identity.
Although reporting of the criminal proceedings could have taken place, within the
constraints of the anonymity order, the Court was informed that there were no press
reports of any kind. I observe that this cautious restraint is a reflection of the highly
responsible and professional nature of the reporting of Court proceedings in
Northern Ireland which has been an established feature for many years.
[5] Ultimately, the Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced at
Belfast Crown Court on 7th December 2012. Although he believes [per his affidavit]
that he had been photographed by press agents outside the Court building on at
least one previous occasion, there is no suggestion that any photograph was
published. He was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment, divided equally between
custody and licenced release. The Crown Court Judge dealt separately and
specifically with the anonymity order. Representations were made by counsel for
the Plaintiff and, in circumstances which are not entirely clear, other counsel who
appears to have received some kind of ad hoc instructions on behalf of the first
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
In the matter of an inquest into the deaths of John Dougal, Patrick Butler, Noel Fitzpatrick, David McCafferty and Margaret Gargan (The Springhill Inquest) - Ruling No. 6 on application by military witnesses for anonymity, screening and remote evidence
...and immediate risk to life arises in this context was clarified in Re Officer C and Others [2012] NICA 47 and ZY v Higgins and Others [2013] NIQB 8. The threshold is a high one but one which, nonetheless, in the context of determined and resourced terrorist groups seeking to attack members ......
-
General Medical Council v X
...or should not be published”: para.60. 154 Secondly, as emphasised in cases such as ZY v Paul Higgins and NI Courts and Tribunal Service [2013] NIQB 8 at [25], it was necessary for the Court to scrutinise the psychiatric evidence with great care. In each case it was necessary to identify the......
1 books & journal articles
-
Better information sharing, or “share or be damned”?
...2014).Furthermore, a contrasting decision in a Northern Irish case, ZY, Paul Higgins v N orthern IrelandCourts and Tribun als Service (2013) NIQB 8, was not considered in the Riaz decision; eventhough the court in t hat case considered that Hig gins, a journalist seeking to id entify aconvi......