The Judgment was in 3 parts – an open judgment; closed judgment Part 1 (to be published if there is no appeal) and a closed judgment Part 2 (which cannot be published without C’s consent or the permission of the Court.
In discharging the injunction (pending any application by C to the Court of Appeal), it was held:
1. The fact that C was 17 years old was of limited support to a reasonable expectation of privacy. C was nearly 18 and was an international sports player. Discussion of his sporting life and the effect it may have upon him is a discussion that contributes to a debate of general interst about a person who is to be regarded as exercising a public function.
2. There was a real propsect of success in the argument that there might be a legitimate story about C regardless of the identity of his parents.
3. Althought the place in which the activity was happening was private, it’s effects could not be confined to one place and it could not be said there would be no potential effects on other people.
4. There was no evidence that it was more likely than not that C would suffer unlawful instrusion, harassment or libel if no injunction were granted.
5. The Court was unable to conclude that the applicant was more likely than not to establish at trial that he has a resonable expectation of privacy.
6. It was not possible to discuss the issue of public interest in any detail in the open judgment. The newspaper had a good prospect of establishing that a publication could be in the public interest. C’s status as a child supported the public interest debate about how institutions who have responsiblity for children perform their functions.
7. If a remedy in damages is to be effective, then the amount that the court may award must not be subject to too severe a limitation. It can no longer be assumed that damages at the low level of cases like Campbell are the limit of the Court’s powers.
8. In the circumstances, there was no need for the Court to resolve the important point of principle raised in respect of whether the injunction was prohibited in Bonnard v Perryman.