Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd

Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd

The hospital failed to convincingly establish that, in 2006, there was a pressing social need or that it was proportionate to order the journalist to disclose his source. The facts had changed since the earlier MGN case: the leak was not for financial gain, the information disclosed was not highly sensitive, the risk of future leaks was low, and the journalist’s role in investigative reporting was of high public interest. The balancing exercise required by law did not justify overriding the protection of journalistic sources in this instance.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mersey Care NHS Trust; Defendant/respondent: Robin Ackroyd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection of Journalistic Sources, Disclosure of Confidential Information, Freedom of Expression, Privacy of Medical Records, Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights
Media Law Confidentiality Human Rights Protection of Journalistic Sources Disclosure of Confidential Information Freedom of Expression Privacy of Medical Records Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mersey Care NHS Trust

Claimant/appellant

Robin Ackroyd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was necessary and proportionate to order a journalist to disclose his source under Norwich Pharmacal principles, section 10 Contempt of Court Act 1981, and Article 10 ECHR, in the context of leaked confidential medical records.

Ratio Decidendi

The hospital failed to convincingly establish that, in 2006, there was a pressing social need or that it was proportionate to order the journalist to disclose his source. The facts had changed since the earlier MGN case: the leak was not for financial gain, the information disclosed was not highly sensitive, the risk of future leaks was low, and the journalist’s role in investigative reporting was of high public interest. The balancing exercise required by law did not justify overriding the protection of journalistic sources in this instance.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of the journalist’s source
  • Hospital’s application for disclosure refused