British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions >> V v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors [2015] EWCOP 88 (09 December 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/88.html
Cite as: [2015] EWCOP 88
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF PROTECTION
B e f o r e :
(In Public)
____________________
| V | ||
| (Second Respondent in the main proceedings) | Applicant | |
| - and - | ||
| (1) ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED | ||
| (2) TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED | ||
| (3) INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA LIMITED | ||
| (4) TELEGRAPH MEDIA GROUP LIMITED | Respondents |
____________________
(a trading name of Opus 2 International Limited)
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 Chancery Lane, London EC4A 1BL
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
info@beverleynunnery.com
____________________
Bindmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR. A. WOLANSKI (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- I do not propose to say very much in this judgment. The reason I do not propose to say very much is that I am pleased to report that the media respondents have indicated to me that they would wish to put in some further evidence relating to the public interest in identifying C. They would also wish to (and I can understand why they would wish to) put in evidence relating to criticism of an approach by a journalist employed by one of them. Additionally and, to my mind, importantly, they also wish to take the opportunity, if so advised, to put in evidence and/or representations on more general points concerning the mechanics and principles that arise in respect of Court of Protection proceedings that the court directs are to be heard in public and in respect of which the court makes some form of reporting restriction order or anonymity order.
- Mr. Wolanski has to-day advanced arguments on behalf of the media respondents to the effect that either relevant Article 8 rights relied on by the applicants are not engaged and/or existing authority demonstrates that there they are simply not powerful enough to warrant the continuation of the injunction. At the moment I say, deliberately and expressly as a preliminary view, that I am unpersuaded by Mr. Wolanski's first three points: the first point related to indirect impact on a 15 year old; the next related to medical confidentiality, and the third as to the impact of publication on the two adult daughters.
- The fourth point which he identified he had to meet was the public interest relating to the administration of justice. In that context, it seems to me important to remember that what the Court of Protection has jurisdiction to do is to invade family life. That is its job. That is what the statute tells it that it is going to do. Part of that, and what arose in this case, was an assessment of whether or not the court had jurisdiction to go on and make decisions on behalf of C. That was the issue in this case.
- In other cases where it has jurisdiction, the court goes on and applies the best interests decision-making process on behalf of P, the overarching purpose of which is to try and place people who, sadly, lack capacity to make their own decisions and exercise their own autonomy in an equivalent position to those who can make their own minds up and make their own decisions, however wise or however foolish those decisions may be.
- To my mind, the wider points which the media respondents have indicated they wish to address through further evidence or representations clearly relate to the public interest in the administration of justice. And they have a direct impact, on the view expressed (I accept on very limited argument and without relevant evidence) by Theis J. that there is no public interest in identifying members of this person's family. But it also pervades, to my thinking, the analysis of the other arguments advanced by Mr Wolanski, or at least is not irrelevant to them, which is one of the reasons why I have only expressed preliminary views.
- In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is inevitably appropriate to continue the injunction until 4.30 on the day I hand down judgment.
- The indication from the Bar is that there will be no need for further oral submissions. But if that is reviewed when the additional material is completed, if a relevant application is made for me to hear further oral submissions, I think I am almost inevitably going to agree to it. I am not encouraging it but if it is thought that there should be further oral submissions, I would, absent good reason to the contrary, agree to hear them. I have not set any timing for the provision of the additional material. It seems to me that the parties can agree that between themselves. All wish for this matter to be over sooner rather than later, so I do not think there needs to be any impetus from me to set a timetable. It does, however, seem to me that it is sensible that the relevant media respondents (and, as has been pointed out, others who may wish to contribute to the issues) have a sensible opportunity to be satisfied that what they put before the court is the full picture that they wish to put before the court.
- The order that I am making has already been discussed and I do not think I need to repeat those discussions now. Everybody within the room knows what it is. It obviously needs to be recorded so that everybody outside the room will know what it is, and it can be properly served. Thank you all very much.
MR. JUSTICE CHARLES :