A criminal court trying parents for the manslaughter of one child and cruelty to three others had made an order under section 39 prohibiting the identification of the surviving children. The judge expressed the view that identifying the parents or the dead child would lead to the identification of the surviving children. Two journalists appealed.
Held: ‘We entirely agree . . . that as a general proposition there is a strong and proper public interest in knowing the identity of those who have committed crimes, particularly serious and detestable crimes. If, as the appellants suggest, there is a growing tendency for the court to use or misuse their powers to prevent the disclosure of the identity of defendants or other persons concerned in criminal proceedings, we are as concerned as they to restrict such a tendency and to ensure that such orders are only made when they are justified.’ The court also pointed out that the media were free to take the risk and disregard the judge’s advice that identifying the parents or the dead child would be in breach of the order, although in practice what he had said was ‘obviously correct’. In making his order, the judge was required to weigh the interest in the full reporting of the crime, ‘including the identification of the defendants’, against the need to protect the victims from further harm. He was persuaded that the likely harm to the children outweighed the restrictions on freedom to publish. The Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal, said that on the evidence before him the judge was clearly correct. Thus, while there is undoubtedly an importance public interest in the identification of defendants, in particular those found guilty of serious crimes, there are circumstances in which it can be outweighed by the need to protect their victims from further harm.
Judges:
Glidewell LJ
Citations:
[1995] 1 WLR 139
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Briffett v Director of Public Prosecutions; Bradshaw v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 6-Nov-2001
A bare order restricting reporting under the section was too vague to allow a later prosecution for contempt. Crook had established that the court must specify just what restrictions are to apply. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Media
Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.183131