M v Press Association [2016] EWCOP 34 (23 June 2016)

M v Press Association [2016] EWCOP 34 (23 June 2016)

The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights in this case weighs more heavily in favour of freedom of expression and open justice. There is insufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances or compelling need to justify continued anonymity beyond Mrs N's death. The public interest in open reporting of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCOP 34
Parties
Applicant: M; Respondent: Press Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Reporting Restriction Order (rro) in Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Written Submissions Following Application to Extend RRO After Death of Protected Party
Outcome
Application to extend the Reporting Restriction Order refused.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity Orders, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Open Justice, Court of Protection Jurisdiction
Media Law Human Rights Law Mental Capacity Law Reporting Restrictions Anonymity Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Open Justice +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

Press Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Reporting Restriction Order (rro) in Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Written Submissions Following Application to Extend RRO After Death of Protected Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) should be extended beyond the death of Mrs N and until further order
  2. 2 Whether Article 8 rights of the family outweigh Article 10 rights of the press and public
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to grant such an order posthumously

Ratio Decidendi

The balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights in this case weighs more heavily in favour of freedom of expression and open justice. There is insufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances or compelling need to justify continued anonymity beyond Mrs N's death. The public interest in open reporting of the proceedings outweighs the family's privacy interests, and the RRO should not be extended further.

Court Disposition

Application to extend the Reporting Restriction Order refused.

Orders

  • Reporting Restriction Order will not be extended beyond the current term; anonymity ceases as previously ordered.