DXB v Persons Unknown & Ors [2020] EWHC 134 (QB) (28 January 2020)

DXB v Persons Unknown & Ors [2020] EWHC 134 (QB) (28 January 2020)

The court held that, although the threshold for Articles 2 and 3 ECHR was not met, the claimant's Article 8 rights to private and family life, rehabilitation, and mental health would be seriously harmed by identification. The evidence demonstrated a real risk of significant harm to his education, health, and rehabilitation, and the misreporting and public misperception of his role increased this risk. The order sought was time-limited and proportionate. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, applying the required parallel analysis and proportionality, justified the extension of anonymity for a limited period beyond the claimant's 18th birthday.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 134
Parties
Claimant: DXB (by his Litigation Friend CDG); Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Times Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Telegraph Media Group Plc; Defendant: The Press Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (media and Communications) / Judgment on Application for Extension of Anonymity Order
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Open Justice, Venables Jurisdiction
Media Law Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Anonymity Orders Reporting Restrictions Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Open Justice +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DXB (by his Litigation Friend CDG)

Claimant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Times Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Telegraph Media Group Plc

Defendant

The Press Association

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (media and Communications) / Judgment on Application for Extension of Anonymity Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend the anonymity of a child defendant beyond his 18th birthday under the Venables jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether such an order is necessary and proportionate under Article 8 ECHR, balancing against Article 10 ECHR and the principle of open justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the threshold for Articles 2 and 3 ECHR was not met, the claimant's Article 8 rights to private and family life, rehabilitation, and mental health would be seriously harmed by identification. The evidence demonstrated a real risk of significant harm to his education, health, and rehabilitation, and the misreporting and public misperception of his role increased this risk. The order sought was time-limited and proportionate. The balance of rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, applying the required parallel analysis and proportionality, justified the extension of anonymity for a limited period beyond the claimant's 18th birthday.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Anonymity order extended for the claimant for a period of just over 22 months beyond his 18th birthday, to expire after his A-level examinations.
  • Reporting restriction order maintained to protect the claimant's identity and certain sensitive health-related matters.