M v Press Association

M v Press Association

The balance of competing rights in this case weighs more heavily in favor of freedom of expression and open justice. There is insufficient cogent and compelling evidence to justify continued anonymity for M and Mrs N beyond the period already granted. The public interest in open reporting of these proceedings, including identification of the parties, outweighs the Article 8 privacy rights of the family in the circumstances.

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 / Post Judgment, Application to Extend Anonymity Order After Death of Subject
Outcome
Application to extend the Reporting Restriction Order until further 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, Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Media Law Mental Capacity Law Reporting Restrictions Anonymity Orders Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +3 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 21 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 / Post Judgment, Application to Extend Anonymity Order After Death of Subject

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) should be extended beyond the death of Mrs N and until further order of the court
  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 a new injunction posthumously

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of competing rights in this case weighs more heavily in favor of freedom of expression and open justice. There is insufficient cogent and compelling evidence to justify continued anonymity for M and Mrs N beyond the period already granted. The public interest in open reporting of these proceedings, including identification of the parties, outweighs the Article 8 privacy rights of the family in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to extend the Reporting Restriction Order until further order refused.

Orders

  • Reporting Restriction Order will not be extended beyond the period already granted; names of Mrs N and M may be reported.