swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Media - From: 1990 To: 1990
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Hector v Attorney General of Antigua; PC 1990 - [1990] 2 AC 312; [1990] 2 WLR 606; [1990] 2 All ER 103
In re M and N (Minors) (Wardship: Publication of Information) [1990] Fam 211
1990
CA
Butler-Sloss LJ
Children, Media
The court considered whether to order that a child's name be not published where the decision to publish would not affect the way in which the child is cared for, the child's welfare is relevant but not paramount and must be balanced against freedom of expression. The court's jurisdiction does not extend to "injunctive protection of children from publicity which though inimicable to their welfare is not directed at them or those who care for them". Butler-Sloss LJ said: 'in this situation the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration'. As to the evidence required to support a request for an injunction: "It has also been suggested that the evidence to be presented to the judge, at least on the inter partes hearing, should include specific evidence of, for instance, psychological harm likely to be caused to the child by the publication proposed. Again, in my view, that is a misconception, both of the function of and the experience of those sitting in the Family Division. In In re X that evidence was available and rightly did not sway the decision. The evidence of child psychiatrists is invaluable in many of the difficult decisions to be made in child cases. In my view, it is not normally necessary in order to assist a judge in balancing the welfare of the child and the right to publish and whether the child and others in the proceedings should or should not be identified"."
1 Citers
Atkinson and Crook and The Independent v United Kingdom 133666/87; (1990) 67 DR 244
3 Dec 1990
ECHR
Human Rights, Media
(European Commission of Human Rights) The Commission answered a question as to admissibility, namely whether the sentencing of a convicted criminal defendant in private infringed article 10. The complainants were two freelance journalists. Held: The Commission considered that the principle established in cases such as Leander paragraph 74, "may not apply with the same force in the context of court proceedings", in the light of the need to have regard to article 6 and "the important role played by the press in the administration of justice". Even if article 10 was engaged, there was a "pressing social need" for the sentencing in that particular case being conducted in private.
"The Commission considers however that the general principles stated by the Court may not apply with the same force in the context of court proceedings . . In order that the media may perform their function of imparting information there is a need that they should be accurately informed . . Assuming that the decision of the court to hold part of the proceedings in camera constituted an interference with the applicants' right to receive and impart information as guaranteed by article 10 para 1 of the Convention, the Commission must consider whether this interference was prescribed by law and whether it was necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the purposes set out in article 10 para 2 of the Convention."
European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites
1 Citers
