R v R & Anor

R v R & Anor

There was no evidential basis for Article 2 ECHR to be engaged. The judge below properly balanced the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, giving appropriate weight to the principle of open justice. The order was clear and consistent, and s.97 Children Act 1989 did not apply as proceedings had concluded. The appeal was dismissed and applications for permission to appeal further orders were refused.

Parties
Appellant: R; First Respondent: R; Second Respondent: Times Newspapers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division) Regarding Reporting Restrictions Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Anonymity in Court Proceedings, Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Children Act 1989 S.97
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Anonymity in Court Proceedings Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) +2 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

R

First Respondent

Times Newspapers Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division) Regarding Reporting Restrictions Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in discharging the reporting restrictions order relating to Court of Appeal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Article 2 ECHR (right to life) was engaged by the facts
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly balanced Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidential basis for Article 2 ECHR to be engaged. The judge below properly balanced the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR, giving appropriate weight to the principle of open justice. The order was clear and consistent, and s.97 Children Act 1989 did not apply as proceedings had concluded. The appeal was dismissed and applications for permission to appeal further orders were refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Husband's appeal against discharge of the Court of Appeal's reporting restriction order dismissed
  • Applications for permission to appeal paragraphs 12(b) and 14 of the order refused