A child’s stepfather obtained an order preventing publication of a book about the child.
Held: The circumstances were novel, but ‘The court has power to protect the ward from any interference with his or her welfare, direct or indirect.’ There was no general remedy for infringement of privacy, because of the importance attached to freedom of the press.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I do not think that the wardship jurisdiction should be extended so as to enable the court to stop publication of this book.’
Roskill LJ said: ‘I would agree that no limits to that jurisdiction have yet been drawn and it is not necessary to consider here what, if any, limits there are to that jurisdiction. The sole question is whether it should be exercised in this case. The mere fact that the courts have never stretched out their arms so far as is proposed in this case is in itself no reason for not stretching out those arms further than before when necessary in a suitable case. There is never a precedent for anything until it has been done once.’ (Pennycuick) ‘It may well be, and I have no doubt it is so, that the courts, when exercising the parental power of the Crown, have, at any rate in legal theory, an unrestricted jurisdiction to do whatever is considered necessary for the welfare of a ward. It is, however, obvious that far-reaching limitations in principle on the exercise of this jurisdiction must exist. The jurisdiction is habitually exercised within those limitations. It would be quite impossible to protect a ward against everything which might do her harm. In particular the jurisdiction must be exercised with due regard to the rights of outside parties . . By ‘outside parties’ I mean those not in a family or personal relation to the ward . . Specifically, it seems to me, the court must hold a proper balance between the protection of the ward and the right of free publication enjoyed by outside parties and should hesitate long before interfering with that right . . It would be impossible and not, I think, desirable to draw any rigid line beyond which the protection of the ward should not be extended. The distinction between direct and indirect interference with a ward is valuable, though the borderline may be blurred. I am not prepared to say that the court should never interfere with the publication of matter concerning a ward. On the contrary, I think in exceptional circumstances the court should do so.’
Judges:
Denning MR, Roskill LJ, Sir John Pennycuick
Citations:
[1975] 1 All ER 697, [1975] Fam 47
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) FD 1975
A stepfather made the child a ward of court in order to try to stop publication of a book containing passages about the sex life of her deceased father. The jurisdiction to order that a child’s name should not be made known, is not exercisable at . .
Cited by:
Cited – Re S (A Child) CA 10-Jul-2003
The mother of the child on behalf of whom the application was made, was to face trial for murder. The child was in care and an order was sought to restrain publiction of material which might reveal his identity, including matters arising during the . .
Cited – In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) CA 10-Jul-2003
An order was sought to protect from publicity a child whose mother faced trial for the murder of his brother. The child was now in care.
Held: The court must balance the need to protect the child with the need for freedom of the press. The . .
Cited – Kelly (A Minor) v British Broadcasting Corporation FD 25-Jul-2000
K, aged 16, had left home to join what was said to be a religious sect. His whereabouts were unknown. He had been made a ward of court and the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent his interests. He had sent messages to say that he was well . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children, Media
Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.184559
