Rotherham had made a teenage girl a ward of court and had obtained interim injunctions that four named men should not associate with her. It alleged that they had been sexually exploiting her. None of the four came to be charged with any offence but two had been arrested and remained on police bail. Rotherham decided that it would not be able to substantiate allegations against any them and applied for the injunctions to be discharged. Rotherham also sought an indefinite extension of interim reporting restriction orders against identification not only of the girl but also of the four men. Times Newspapers Ltd, also the first respondent to the present appeal, opposed extension of the orders insofar as they related to the four men.
Held: The application was granted.
Cobb J said: ‘I next ask myself what is the public interest in naming these four men in the press as persons against whom injunction proceedings were once brought, interim injunctions (without evidence being tested) once made, but in respect of whom in the end no findings were sought, let alone made. In my judgment there is no, or if any, negligible, such public interest . . On the other hand, there is a substantial risk that, given the strength of feeling in Rotherham and elsewhere about those who engage in child sexual exploitation and similar offences, they would be perceived to be perpetrators or likely perpetrators, and pilloried and/or targeted in their communities if they were known to have been under suspicion in this way.’
He quoted from a leading article in The Times: ‘False rape and abuse accusations can inflict terrible damage on the reputations, prospects and health of those accused. For all the presumption of innocence, mud sticks.’
He concluded that the restriction orders against identification of the men should be continued indefinitely: ‘I have reached the firm conclusion that there is no true public interest in naming the four associated males, against whom, in the end, no findings have been sought or made. [Their] article 8 rights . . would be in my judgment significantly violated were they to be publicly exposed in the media as having been implicated to a greater or lesser degree, but not proved to be engaged, in this type of offending.’
Cobb J
[2016] EWHC 2660 (Fam), [2016] 4 WLR 177
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others SC 19-Jul-2017
No anonymity for investigation suspect
The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Media, Human Rights
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570772