Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors

The injunction is necessary and proportionate to protect the applicant's life, limb, and psychological health, given the ongoing risks and effectiveness of previous orders. Restrictions on media freedom are justified and do not inhibit legitimate public debate.

Parties: Claimant: Maxine Carr; Defendants: News Group Newspapers Limited & Others; Interested Party: Home Office; Interested Party: Probation Service
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 February 2005
Procedural Posture: Injunction Application / Judgment
Outcome: injunction granted
Legal Topics: Injunctions, Protection of Identity, Freedom of Expression, Proportionality, Rehabilitation

Human Rights Privacy Law Media Law Injunctions Protection of Identity Freedom of Expression Proportionality Rehabilitation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Maxine Carr

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Limited & Others

Defendants

Home Office

Interested Party

Probation Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether an injunction contra mundum is necessary to protect the applicant's new identity and whereabouts
2 Whether restriction of media rights under Article 10 ECHR is justified
3 Whether the order is proportionate to the risks faced by the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

injunction granted

Orders

Order made in terms of the draft injunction to protect applicant's identity and whereabouts
Provision for media or interested parties to apply for discharge or variation of the injunction on short notice