PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd And Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1132 (01 August 2014)

PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd And Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1132 (01 August 2014)

The Court held that the open justice principle and the public interest in reporting court proceedings, including the identification of the appellant, outweighed the appellant's and his family's Article 8 rights. The risk of harm to the appellant and his children did not justify a departure from the ordinary rule, especially as the information had already been referred to in open court and the reporting would be fair and accurate. The judge's evaluative balancing exercise was not plainly wrong or based on an error of principle.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1132
Parties
Appellant: PNM; Respondents: Times Newspapers Limited and Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Misuse of Private Information, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Reporting Restrictions, Anonymity Orders
Media Law Privacy Law Human Rights Law Open Justice Misuse of Private Information Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Reporting Restrictions +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PNM

Appellant

Times Newspapers Limited and Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Non Disclosure Order (privacy Injunction) by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim privacy injunction should be granted to prevent publication of information identifying the appellant as arrested on suspicion of serious sexual offences
  2. 2 Whether the open justice principle outweighs the appellant's Article 8 rights in this context
  3. 3 Whether the rights of the appellant's children require particular weight in the balancing exercise

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the open justice principle and the public interest in reporting court proceedings, including the identification of the appellant, outweighed the appellant's and his family's Article 8 rights. The risk of harm to the appellant and his children did not justify a departure from the ordinary rule, especially as the information had already been referred to in open court and the reporting would be fair and accurate. The judge's evaluative balancing exercise was not plainly wrong or based on an error of principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment remains anonymised and section 4(2) orders remain in place until Supreme Court permission application is determined or until further order
  • If permission is not pursued or is unsuccessful, section 4(2) orders will be lifted and appellant's full name will be substituted for initials