Ackroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust

Ackroyd v Mersey Care NHS Trust

The Court of Appeal held that, although the facts of the MGN case are highly relevant, Mr Ackroyd's position as a journalist with a distinct history and motivation, and the absence of venality in his sources, create sufficient factual differences to justify a trial. The summary judgment was set aside because the balancing exercise under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires full consideration of the facts, and it cannot be summarily determined that the public interest in disclosure overrides the protection of journalistic sources in this case.

Parties
Appellant: Robin Ackroyd; Respondent: Mersey Care NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Protection of Journalistic Sources, Disclosure of Medical Records, Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence
Media Law Confidentiality Human Rights Protection of Journalistic Sources Disclosure of Medical Records Norwich Pharmacal Jurisdiction Freedom of Expression Public Interest Defence

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Ackroyd

Appellant

Mersey Care NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant journalist should be ordered to disclose his source of leaked medical records under the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the facts of the case justify overriding the protection of journalistic sources under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether a public interest defence is available to the source or the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, although the facts of the MGN case are highly relevant, Mr Ackroyd's position as a journalist with a distinct history and motivation, and the absence of venality in his sources, create sufficient factual differences to justify a trial. The summary judgment was set aside because the balancing exercise under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires full consideration of the facts, and it cannot be summarily determined that the public interest in disclosure overrides the protection of journalistic sources in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Gray J of 18.10.02 set aside
  • Matter to proceed to trial