Life or death injunctions not so super (or controversial)

19 May 2011 by

W v. M, S, an NHS PCT and Times Newspapers Ltd. [2011] EQHC 1197 (COP) – read judgment. In the midst of all the fuss over the last two weeks about ‘superinjunctions’ and the law on privacy (see our coverage here, herehere and here) the Court of Protection (“CoP”) has just granted an injunction imposing extensive reporting restrictions on the media in a case involving potentially controversial end-of-life issues.

The press has picked up on the decision mainly because the injunction is the first in the UK courts (and perhaps anywhere in the world) to specifically prohibit publishing restricted information on any “social network or media including Twitter or Facebook“. This is noteworthy given the recent furore about an anonymous Twitter user ‘outing’ a number of UK celebrities who had obtained injunctions (although given that Twitter is a US-based website, it is difficult to see how the order will be enforced). But the decision by Baker J is far more interesting for the way he described how the media’s free speech rights should be balanced against the parties’ privacy rights in the kind of sensitive cases dealt with by the CoP, and how he expressly distinguished it from the approach taken in celebrity cases.

The facts

The case, which is due to be heard in July, concerns a 43-year-old woman (“M”) who suffers from profound brain stem encephalitis and has since 2003 been in a ‘minimally conscious state’. M’s family members have come to the clear view that she would not wish to continue living in such a state and have sought an order from the Court of Protection that would permit her doctors and carers to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration and allow her to die. Although similar orders have been granted before, this is the first case where the person is not in a permanent vegetative state.

The ‘secretive’ Court of Protection

Hearings in the CoP are normally held in private, which has led to much criticism from some quarters (see our recent post on the issue here). Baker J robustly defended this position, noting that since the CoP is concerned with the weak and vulnerable, and has to make decisions for those who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves, it was quite understandable that Parliament decided the default should be privacy.

However, Baker J also noted that some of the CoP’s work should be conducted in public, particularly matters which involve serious medical treatment or life-and-death decisions. In such cases the judge may impose reporting restrictions to protect the privacy of the family involved. An injunction had already been made in the present case which banned publication of any information that could be used to identify any of the parties, and which also banned the media from contacting 65 people involved in caring for M. This second part of the order caused some consternation in the press, and The Times wrote a letter to M’s solicitors complaining that it went too far.

The CoP decided to review the injunction and decide whether it had the power to restrain the media from communicating with any person, and if so whether it should exercise that power in this case.

The decision

Baker J held that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Court of Protection Rules 2007 undoubtedly gave the CoP the power to impose reporting restrictions of this kind. The next question – to what extent that power should be used – was to be answered, pursuant to the Human Rights Act, by balancing articles 8 and 10.

The Times argued that in balancing article 10 rights with article 8 rights in such a context reporting restrictions should only be made where they were shown to be necessary, and then defined in the least restrictive way possible.

However, Baker J dismissed this argument (which was, in effect, that article 10 should be given priority) and held that in the CoP neither article 8 nor article 10 has automatic precedence over the other because the default position was for hearings to be in private, unlike other courts where the default position is for public hearings. He then went on to make several further comments about the balancing of article 8 with article 10 in the peculiar context of the CoP, including:

  • There may be cases where it is not just articles 8 and 10 which are engaged, but article 6 is also in play; for example where attempts by the media to contact litigants might affect their willingness to participate in the litigation;
  • The article 8 rights of the family members of an incapacitated person might need to be taken into account as well;
  • The public interest in freedom of expression arising in serious medical cases such as the present case usually lies in the general issues that arise, not the identity and personal circumstances of the incapacitated person in question; and
  • It must be borne in mind that it is in the public interest more broadly for the practices and procedures of the Court of Protection to be more widely understood.

No celebrity scandals here, please

The most interesting comment from Baker J was his last:

It is of course the case that the [CoP]…is considering the same human rights as usually arise in the so-called superinjunction cases in the Queen’s Bench Division, in which celebrities and others seek to restrain publication concerning their private lives. Both jurisdictions are applying the same statute, namely the Human Rights Act, and will continue to do so unless and until Parliament passes a new privacy law. Both jurisdictions involve the balancing exercise, usually of articles 8 and 10. But the conduct of that balancing exercise will invariably be very different in the [CoP] because of the circumstances of those whom the court is seeking to protect…Decisions on the conduct of the balancing exercise between competing Convention rights in celebrity cases are unlikely to be of any relevance to decisions in the [CoP] or vice versa.

On the facts of the present case – including concerns that some of the family members would not want to take part in proceedings if they could be contacted by the media – Baker J granted the injunction in terms which banned publication of information which would reveal M’s identity and prevented any attempts to approach M’s care home or family.

The more general point to take from this decision, though, is that not all injunctions and reporting restrictions are to do with footballers’ embarrassing dalliances or BBC reporters’ affairs. Any discussion and debate about the correct balance between privacy and free speech must also consider the approach that should be taken in the very different context of highly sensitive decisions about life and death.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

5 comments


  1. tommy says:

    I completely agree with Tara on this one. No self respecting decent human being would want to breach the privacy of this poor family and cheapen this persons life just to sell a few newspapers. Google and such websites that are showing a complete disregard for UK laws ahould be held accountable for their actions and the effect that they will have on others.

  2. Tara Davison says:

    correction Feewebs should read Freewebs!

  3. Tara Davison says:

    Baker J is absolutely right. Why would any reasonable person want to invade this family’s private grief and struggle! The Injunction which also covers Facebook and Twitter is very welcome.
    But will this injunction affect Google and Blogger.com or other USA based hosts/publishers like Feewebs who regularly brake injunctions and publish defamatory content.
    I recently had a meeting with Google’s UK Lawyers who told me that Google would not respect any foreign injunctions or Court Orders because of the “ Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act” 2010 which basically means that the USA has made a law to specifically make UK Court Order not legally enforceable in the USA in respect of Defamation and Privacy.
    Bloggers who want to break injunctions and or print defamatory material have the protection of giants like Google who make money from advertising and have no respect for the European Human Rights Laws. Or indeed for the UK law on Defamation and Privacy.
    Bloggers who want to break the law may also have a friend in David Cameron whose director of strategy Steve Hilton is the partner of Rachel Wetstone Goggles European head of Communications.
    We need to protect our Privacy and Defamation Laws against intrusion from Global Conglomerates like Google whose power and pressure can influence the law makers in the USA.

  4. Sabine Kurjo says:

    Yes, Ian, beats me, too!

    The media don’t pick up on injunctions protecting the criminals!

    That hypocrisy or schizophrenia re adoption ads is even more of a reason for ‘going to town’ about it all!

    Thank you, as I’m trying to help Liz Watson to save her neck for having helped Vicky Haigh get her daughter back!

    Daily Mirror, eh? I guess they don’t mind where there advertising money comes from…

    Sighingly yours,

    Sabine K McNeill
    http://victims-unite.net

  5. ian josephs says:

    Beats me why everyone concentrates on sleazy celebrities trying to preserve their already tattered reputations!
    Why not try and help mothers whose babies are ruthlessly confiscated at birth for “risk of emotional abuse” and who are jailed if they speak about it in public?All this in the name of protecting the so called “privacy” of babies by jailing their mothers if they dare to complain!
    Oh, and I must repeat again that privacy goes out of the window at the convenience of social workers when they advertise these same babies fo adoption like pedigree dogs in the Daily Mirror and other periodicals with photos ,birthdates,first names etc for easy identification by “the neighbours!
    Yes this is happening right now in the UK !

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: