England and Wales Judgment

Orphans From Syria, Re

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The balance falls decisively in favour of the children's Article 8 rights due to their vulnerability and traumatic experiences; reporting restrictions are necessary to protect their welfare and privacy.

Court disposition

Reporting restrictions order continued; children placed in care and control of family; local authority joined as party.

Orders

  • Reporting restrictions order continued to protect anonymity and privacy of children and family members.
  • Children placed in care and control of their family upon return to the UK.
  • Local authority joined as party to wardship proceedings.
  • Contempt of court warning for breach of reporting restrictions.

02

Material facts

Parties

Children (Syrian Orphans)

Applicant Counsel: Mr H Tomlinson QC, Ms L Briggs

Media Agencies

Respondent Counsel: Mr J Bunting

Local Authority

Respondent Counsel: Mr B Gallop

Children

Respondent Counsel: Mr R Cameron

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Wardship Proceedings / Judgment on Reporting Restrictions and Welfare Orders

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The children's Article 8 rights to privacy and welfare outweigh the Article 10 rights of the media; reporting restrictions are necessary due to their vulnerability and traumatic experiences.
Respondent
The media agencies argued for the importance of Article 10 rights and public interest in reporting, but these were outweighed by the children's welfare needs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Children Act 1989

    The welfare and best interests of the child are paramount in wardship proceedings.

  2. 02

    European Convention on Human Rights

    Article 8 rights to privacy can outweigh Article 10 rights to freedom of expression in cases involving vulnerable children.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The balance falls decisively in favour of the children's Article 8 rights due to their vulnerability and traumatic experiences; reporting restrictions are necessary to protect their welfare and privacy.

Obiter and limits

  • Any future operations involving repatriation of children from conflict zones will be similarly complex and difficult.
  • The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's assistance was crucial in the repatriation process.

Court disposition

Reporting restrictions order continued; children placed in care and control of family; local authority joined as party.

  • Reporting restrictions order continued to protect anonymity and privacy of children and family members.
  • Children placed in care and control of their family upon return to the UK.
  • Local authority joined as party to wardship proceedings.
  • Contempt of court warning for breach of reporting restrictions.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWHC 3202 (Fam)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION Date: 22/11/2019 Before :

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Re ORPHANS FROM SYRIA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr H Tomlinson QC (acting pro bono) and Ms L Briggs (instructed by Goodman Ray and Birnberg Pierce) for the Applicant Mr J Bunting for the Media Agencies Mr B Gallop for the Local Authority Mr R Cameron (instructed by Harris Temperley) for the Children Hearing dates: 22nd November 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. .............................

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN This judgment was delivered in public. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN Approved Judgment The Hon. Mr Justice Keehan : Syrian Orphans 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. This matter concerns British citizens who were in Syria who are orphans. I made a reporting restriction order when the matter first came before me on 21st October 2019. I have today in broadly the same terms continued that reporting restrictions order because I am satisfied that the article 8 rights of the children who have been returned to this country significantly outweigh the article 10 rights of the press and the broadcast media. It will be plain that, being orphans and being in a warzone, they will have suffered emotionally and psychologically, the extent of which needs to be assessed and determined. Until I am aware of how vulnerable they are I adopt a cautious approach to their welfare and best interests. And it is for that reason that I am satisfied that the balance falls decisively in favour of their article 8 rights. For the benefit of the public, I can say the following about the circumstances of the family Around 2015 a family arrived in Syria. It is understood that the children were orphaned there. The children’s relatives in the UK came to be aware that the children were in Syria and they immediately instructed solicitors to write to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and charities operating in Syria to raise the case of the children. On 21st October on the Application of one of the children’s relatives I made the children wards of court, made an order for

their return to the jurisdiction and respectfully requested the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to secure their return. I gave permission to disclose the order to the local authority in whose area the children were to reside and ordered the matter to be restored on the children’s return to the country. I also then made a reporting restrictions order. The following day I was notified that a journalist using the details set out in the schedule to the reporting restrictions order had attended the homes of several family members. Accordingly on 24th October I made a revised reporting restrictions order setting out that using of schedules in the reporting restrictions order was a contempt of court. On 29th October I ordered that the children on their return should be placed in the care and control of their family. On 15th November I joined the relevant local authority as a party to the wardship proceedings. I am immensely grateful to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London (a) for their assistance in organising the repatriation of the children and (b) for their cooperation with the court. It is apparent that this was a complex and difficult

MR JUSTICE KEEHAN Approved Judgment Syrian Orphans operation in a fragile environment. It involved the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London and across its overseas network. Any other operations will be similarly complex and difficult. 15.

16. These children were handed into the care of Foreign and Commonwealth Office Officials yesterday. They boarded a plane to return to the UK yesterday and arrived this morning in London where they were met by members of their family. They had breakfast together with their relatives and they appeared to be in good spirits. They were then driven to the family home where they are to live. They slept peacefully in the car on the journey from the airport. They immediately recognised the family members and family home on their arrival. They have settled into the home and appear to be as happy as they possibly could be in the difficult circumstances of their return.

17. That is all I propose to say by way of a public judgment.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Children Act 1989

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

European Convention on Human Rights

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.