Al M (Children)

Al M (Children)

The Court of Appeal held that the President of the Family Division was entitled to order publication of the fact-finding and assurances/waiver judgments prior to the final welfare hearing. The balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR was properly conducted, with both rights pointing towards publication in the unique circumstances. The President had all necessary evidence, including the Guardian's report, and publication was found to be not only desirable but necessary to correct a harmful false narrative affecting the mother and children. The welfare of the children was a primary consideration, but not paramount, and the President's evaluative decision was not plainly...

Parties
Appellant/father: His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum; First Respondent/mother: Her Royal Highness Princess Haya bint Al Hussein; Second Respondent/child: Al Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum; Second Respondent/child: Zayed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum; Media Respondent: Associated Newspapers Ltd; Media Respondent: British Broadcasting Corporation; Media Respondent: The Financial Times Ltd; Media Respondent: Guardian News & Media; Media Respondent: Telegraph Media Group Ltd; Media Respondent: Sky PLC; Media Respondent: Times Newspapers Limited; Media Respondent: Press Association; Media Respondent: Thomson Reuters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family Division) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Wardship, Publication of Judgments, Reporting Restrictions, Children's Welfare, Freedom of Expression, Right to Privacy
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Wardship Publication of Judgments Reporting Restrictions Children's Welfare Freedom of Expression +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Appellant/father

Her Royal Highness Princess Haya bint Al Hussein

First Respondent/mother

Al Jalila bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Second Respondent/child

Zayed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

Second Respondent/child

Associated Newspapers Ltd

Media Respondent

British Broadcasting Corporation

Media Respondent

The Financial Times Ltd

Media Respondent

Guardian News & Media

Media Respondent

Telegraph Media Group Ltd

Media Respondent

Sky PLC

Media Respondent

Times Newspapers Limited

Media Respondent

Press Association

Media Respondent

Thomson Reuters

Media Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family Division) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was correct to order publication of judgments relating to children in wardship proceedings prior to the final welfare hearing
  2. 2 Whether the balancing exercise between Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) ECHR was properly conducted
  3. 3 Whether the welfare of the children should be the paramount consideration in publication decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the President of the Family Division was entitled to order publication of the fact-finding and assurances/waiver judgments prior to the final welfare hearing. The balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR was properly conducted, with both rights pointing towards publication in the unique circumstances. The President had all necessary evidence, including the Guardian's report, and publication was found to be not only desirable but necessary to correct a harmful false narrative affecting the mother and children. The welfare of the children was a primary consideration, but not paramount, and the President's evaluative decision was not plainly...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the President's order of 27 January 2020 is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the President's order of 21 February 2020 is dismissed.