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 (risk to life or serious harm) was not met, the claimant's Article 8 rights to private and family life, rehabilitation, and mental health would be seriously undermined by identification. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10, applying the proportionality and parallel analysis required by In re S, justified a time-limited reporting restriction order extending the claimant's anonymity for just over 22 months, to allow him to complete his education and rehabilitation. The order was necessary and proportionate in the exceptional circumstances of the case, given the risk of serious harm to the claimant's welfare and...

Citation
[2020] EWHC 134 (QB)
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 for Reporting Restriction Order (anonymity) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; time-limited reporting restriction order granted.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Venables Jurisdiction
Media Law Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Reporting Restrictions Anonymity Orders Open Justice Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +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 4
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 for Reporting Restriction Order (anonymity) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend the anonymity of a child defendant beyond his 18th birthday under the Venables jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the balance between Article 8 (private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) justifies a time-limited reporting restriction order

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the threshold for Articles 2 and 3 ECHR (risk to life or serious harm) was not met, the claimant's Article 8 rights to private and family life, rehabilitation, and mental health would be seriously undermined by identification. The balance between Article 8 and Article 10, applying the proportionality and parallel analysis required by In re S, justified a time-limited reporting restriction order extending the claimant's anonymity for just over 22 months, to allow him to complete his education and rehabilitation. The order was necessary and proportionate in the exceptional circumstances of the case, given the risk of serious harm to the claimant's welfare and...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; time-limited reporting restriction order granted.

Orders

  • Anonymity order for the claimant (DXB) extended for just over 22 months beyond his 18th birthday, to expire after completion of A-levels.
  • Reporting restriction order (RRO) pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 to protect the claimant's identity and certain sensitive matters.