Cases

A (A Local Authority) v PD & Another

Held

(1) The 20 May order did not restrain the media from identifying PD in reports of the criminal trial. While it prohibited publication of PD’s identity, it contained an express exemption for the purposes of reporting the trial. Further, the judge who made the order had neither been referred to Re S nor to the Practice Direction relating to applications affecting the media. (2) No injunction should be granted against the media. Considering the Article 8 rights of PD’s child, and the Article 10 rights of the media, the evidence did not reveal circumstances of such an exceptional or compelling nature as would justify an injunction. The approach of the Local Authority - that no damage had been caused to the public interest by the fact that press reports of the trial had so far not identified PD - was erroneous.

Also