The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings.
Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk.
Judges:
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Citations:
Times 19-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 195
Links:
Statutes:
Data Protection Act 1988, Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2), Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – A Health Authority v Dr X and Others CA 21-Dec-2001
Where, after a children case has been heard, a party wishes to apply for the release of papers, the application should be made before the judge who had heard the case. To do otherwise left the second judge making a difficult assessment with . .
Cited – Broadmoor Hospital Authority and Another v Robinson CA 20-Dec-1999
Where a body was given statutory duties, it would normally be entitled to orders restraining others from interfering with its performance of those duties. A patient detained under the Act had written a book, and the Hospital had sought to restrain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167703
Comments are closed.