S (a child), Re [2003] EWCA Civ 963 (10 July 2003)

S (a child), Re [2003] EWCA Civ 963 (10 July 2003)

The Family Division's inherent jurisdiction exists and can be exercised to protect a child from harmful publicity relating to criminal proceedings, but in this case, the balancing exercise between the child's Article 8 rights and the media's Article 10 rights does not justify overriding the principle of open justice and freedom of expression; the order should not prohibit identification of the defendant and victim in the criminal trial.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 963
Parties
Appellant: CS (a child); Appellant: PS (mother); Respondents: 1st – 3rd Respondents (newspaper groups)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Family Division / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Child Protection, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Reporting Restrictions, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 Rights
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Inherent Jurisdiction Child Protection Freedom of Expression Privacy Reporting Restrictions +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CS (a child)

Appellant

PS (mother)

Appellant

1st – 3rd Respondents (newspaper groups)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Family Division / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Division's inherent jurisdiction can be used to prohibit identification of a defendant and victim in a criminal trial to protect a child not covered by statutory reporting restrictions
  2. 2 How to balance the child's Article 8 ECHR rights against the media's Article 10 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Family Division's inherent jurisdiction exists and can be exercised to protect a child from harmful publicity relating to criminal proceedings, but in this case, the balancing exercise between the child's Article 8 rights and the media's Article 10 rights does not justify overriding the principle of open justice and freedom of expression; the order should not prohibit identification of the defendant and victim in the criminal trial.