British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal & Ors

British Broadcasting Corporation v CAFCASS Legal & Ors

The court permitted publication of Judge Plumstead’s judgment in anonymised form and disclosure of the video footage to the BBC, subject to a contra mundum injunction prohibiting identification of social workers, police officer, treating doctors, and expert witnesses. The injunction would last until 28 days after written notification by the BBC of broadcast or decision not to broadcast, or further order. The approach balanced the Article 8 rights of professionals and the Article 10/Article 8 rights of the parents and BBC, providing adequate interim protection and opportunity for further applications.

Parties
Applicant: British Broadcasting Corporation; First Respondent: CAFCASS Legal; Second Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council; Third Respondent (mother): Victoria Ward; Fourth Respondent (father): Jake Ward; Fifth Respondent (child): William Ward (by guardian Carol Clements); Sixth Respondent: Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; Seventh Respondent: Cambridgeshire Constabulary; Eighth Respondent (expert Witness): Doctor A; Ninth Respondent (expert Witness): Doctor B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Family / Care Proceedings (disclosure and Reporting Restrictions) / Post Final Judgment; Applications for Disclosure, Reporting, and Anonymity Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part; judgment and video footage may be disclosed subject to reporting restrictions and anonymity order.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Judgments, Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity of Witnesses, Article 8 ECHR (privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Children Act 1989, Administration of Justice Act 1960
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Disclosure of Judgments Reporting Restrictions Anonymity of Witnesses Article 8 ECHR (privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Broadcasting Corporation

Applicant

CAFCASS Legal

First Respondent

Cambridgeshire County Council

Second Respondent

Victoria Ward

Third Respondent (mother)

Jake Ward

Fourth Respondent (father)

William Ward (by guardian Carol Clements)

Fifth Respondent (child)

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Sixth Respondent

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

Seventh Respondent

Doctor A

Eighth Respondent (expert Witness)

Doctor B

Ninth Respondent (expert Witness)

Procedural Posture

Family / Care Proceedings (disclosure and Reporting Restrictions) / Post Final Judgment; Applications for Disclosure, Reporting, and Anonymity Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parents and BBC should be permitted to disclose and broadcast information about the care proceedings and video footage
  2. 2 Whether Judge Plumstead’s judgment should be published and on what terms
  3. 3 Whether and to what extent anonymity should be granted to professionals involved in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court permitted publication of Judge Plumstead’s judgment in anonymised form and disclosure of the video footage to the BBC, subject to a contra mundum injunction prohibiting identification of social workers, police officer, treating doctors, and expert witnesses. The injunction would last until 28 days after written notification by the BBC of broadcast or decision not to broadcast, or further order. The approach balanced the Article 8 rights of professionals and the Article 10/Article 8 rights of the parents and BBC, providing adequate interim protection and opportunity for further applications.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; judgment and video footage may be disclosed subject to reporting restrictions and anonymity order.

Orders

  • Publication of Judge Plumstead’s judgment in anonymised form approved by the court.
  • Parents permitted to disclose video footage to the BBC, including footage identifying the child and discussion of proceedings.