Case No: HQ 0004986 & HQ 0004737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 8th January 2001
B e f o r e :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- and -
NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr E. Fitzgerald QC and Mr B. Emmerson QC(instructed by Bhatt Murphy and Co.) for the First Claimant
Mr Brian Higgs QC and Mr Julian Nutter (instructed by Lloyd Lee Dures) for the Second Claimant
Mr D. Browne QC and Mr A. Wolanski (instructed by Farrer and Co.) for the Defendants
Mr G. Murdoch QC and Mr M. Scott-Manderson for the Official Solicitor
Mr A. Caldecott QC and Mr S. Suttle for the Attorney General
Mr M. Shaw for the Treasury Solicitor
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT: APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN (SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS)
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P. :
"It is necessary for me to balance the public interest in lifting reporting restrictions and the interests of the defendants. I lifted the reporting restrictions as set out in my order of the 24th November. I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants following the murder and I considered that the background in respect of the two boys` family, lifestyle, education and the possible effect of violent videos, on the defendants` behaviour ought to be brought out into the open because there was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children. However, public interest also demands that they have a good opportunity of rehabilitation. They must have an opportunity to be brought up in the units in a way so as to facilitate their rehabilitation."
Form of the injunctions applied for
(i) protection of information regarding changes in their physical appearance since their detention;
(ii) protection of their new identity when they are released into the community;
(iii) protection of information about their existing placement;
(iv) protection of all specific information relating to their time in the secure units between February 1993 and August 2000.
B. Issues before the court
c) for the past ?
1. Subsidiary issues relate to the extent to which they are entitled to keep confidential historical information about their past life in the secure units, and whether injunctions can or should be granted to protect this information. This also raises questions as to the extent to which the judgment of the editor over the decision whether to publish would be a sufficient safeguard, or the voluntary Code accepted by the Press and applied by the Press Complaints Commission.
On behalf of the claimants
On behalf of the newspapers
On behalf of the Attorney General and Official Solicitor
Jurisdiction to grant an injunction
Application of the Convention
"The essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities. There may, however, be positive obligations inherent in an effective " respect" for family life. Those obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for family life, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individual's rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific steps, (see among other authorities, X and Y v The Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985 and mutatis mutandis, Osman v the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1998). In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the State's margin of appreciation (see, among other authorities, the Keegan v Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994)".
"puts beyond question the direct applicability of at least one article of the Convention as between one private party to litigation and another – in the jargon, its horizontal effect."
The jurisdictional basis for an injunction
"The powers of courts with equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions are, subject to any relevant statutory restrictions, unlimited. Injunctions are granted only when to do so accords with equitable principles, but this restriction involves, not a defect of powers, but an adoption of doctrines and practices that change in their application from time to time. Unfortunately, there have sometimes been made observations by judges that tend to confuse questions of jurisdiction or of powers with questions of discretions or of practice. The preferable analysis involves a recognition of the great width of equitable powers, an historical appraisal of the categories of injunctions that have been established and an acceptance that pursuant to general equitable principles, injunctions may issue in new categories when this course appears appropriate."
Lord Woolf referred to two types of injunction that have emerged in the last 30 years or so, the Mareva, or freezing injunction, and the injunction to restrain proceedings in a foreign court. He endorsed the observation of Cooke P in TV3 Network Ltd v Eveready New Zealand Ltd  3 NZLR 435 at page 438:
"the remedy of injunction should be available whenever required by justice."
The issue in the Broadmoor case, which does not arise here, was whether the Hospital Authority had standing to make an application for an injunction. In the present case, if there is jurisdiction to grant injunctions, the claimants clearly have standing to seek the remedy.
The jurisdiction based on confidence
The evidence must have " the necessary quality of confidence about it."
The information "must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence."
There must be an "unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it."
" I start with the broad principle (which I do not in any way intend to be definitive) that a duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person (the confidant) in circumstances where he has notice, or is held to have agreed, that the information is confidential, with the effect that it would be just in all the circumstances that he should be precluded from disclosing the information to others...
...in the vast majority of cases...the duty of confidence will arise from a transaction or relationship between the parties...but it is well settled that a duty of confidence may arise in equity independently of such cases.."
"...that the principle of confidentiality only applies to information to the extent that it is confidential. In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.
The second limiting principle is that the duty of confidence applies neither to useless information, nor to trivia. The third limiting principle is of far greater importance. It is that, although the basis of the law's protection of confidence is that that there is a public interest that confidences should be preserved and protected by the law, nevertheless that public interest may be outweighed by some other countervailing public interest which favours disclosure...It is this limiting principle which may require a court to carry out a balancing operation, weighing the public interest in maintaining confidence against a countervailing public interest favouring disclosure."
Article 10: Freedom of expression.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers...
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
"The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression..."
"Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self-fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Holmes J (echoing John Stuart Mill), "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US 616, 630 per Holmes J (dissenting). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country: see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnet, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. (1996) pp1078-1086."
"The motives which impel judges to assume a power to balance freedom of speech against other interests are almost always understandable and humane on the facts of the particular case before them. Newspapers are sometimes irresponsible and their motives in a market economy cannot be expected to be unalloyed by considerations of commercial advantage. Publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things "right-thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible. This freedom is subject only to clearly defined exceptions laid down by common law or statute.
It cannot be too strongly emphasised that outside the established exceptions, or any new ones that Parliament may enact in accordance with its obligations under the Convention, there is no question of balancing freedom of speech against other interests. It is a trump card which always wins.
...no freedom is without cost and in my view the judiciary should not whittle away freedom of speech with ad hoc exceptions. The principle that the press is free from both government and judicial control is more important than the particular case."
"...if those who seek to bring themselves within paragraph 2 of article 10 are to establish "convincingly" that they are – and that is what they have to establish – they cannot do by mere assertion, however eminent the person making the assertion, nor by simply inviting the court to make assumptions; what is required ...is proper evidence."
"The court is faced not with a choice between two conflicting principles, but with a principle of freedom of expression that is subject to a number of exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted."
"...by virtue of ss. 12(1) and (4) [of the Human Rights Act 1998] the qualifications set out in Article 10(2) are as relevant as the right set out in Article 10(1). This means, for example, the reputations and rights of others – not only but not least their Convention rights – are as material as the defendant's right of free expression. So is the prohibition on the use of one party's Convention rights to injure the Convention rights of others. Any other approach to s. 12 would in my judgment violate s.3.
...the much-quoted remark of Hoffman J in R v Central Television plc  Fam. 192, 203 that freedom of speech "is a trump card which always wins" came in a passage which expressly qualified the proposition as lying "outside the established exceptions (or any new ones which parliament may enact in accordance with its obligations under the Convention)". If freedom of expression is to be impeded, in other words, it must be on a cogent ground recognised by law.
... s. 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the court to have regard to Article 10...this cannot...give the Article 10(1) right to freedom of expression a presumptive priority over other rights. What it does require the court to consider is Article 10(2) along with 10(1), and by doing so bring into the frame the conflicting right to privacy. This right, contained in Article 8 and reflected in English law, is in turn qualified in both contexts by the right of others to free expression. The outcome, which self evidently has to be the same under both articles, is determined principally by considerations of proportionality."
"Some people have read that to mean that freedom of speech always trumps other rights and values. But that is not what I said. I said only that in order to be put [in] the balance against freedom of speech, another interest must fall within some established exception which could be justified under Article 10 of the European Convention". (see also Sedley LJ in the Michael Douglas case at paragraph 137)
"...... the qualifications set out in Article 10(2) are as relevant as the right set out in Article 10 (1)."
" Although the right to freedom of expression is not in every case the ace of trumps, it is a powerful card to which the courts of this country must always pay appropriate respect."
And Sedley LJ said at paragraph 137
"If freedom of expression is to be impeded,... it must be on cogent grounds recognised by law."
Article 2, "Right to life"
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."
2. [the exceptions which do not apply]
"The court notes that the first sentence of Article 2(1) enjoins the state not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within it's jurisdiction.
...it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk."
Article 3 "Prohibition of torture"
" No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Article 8, Right to respect for private and family life
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
"The Court recalls that although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private or family life. These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves."
"The other point, well made by Mr Tugendhat, is that it is "the Convention right" to freedom of expression which both triggers the section (see section 12(1)) and to which particular regard is to be had. That Convention right, when one turns to it, is qualified in favour of the reputation and rights of others and the protection of information received in confidence. In other words you cannot have particular regard to Article 10 without having equally particular regard at the very least to Article 8.
........ [Mr Carr] balked at what Mr Tughendhat submitted, and I agree, was the necessary extension of the subsection`s logic. A newspaper, say, intends to publish an article about an individual who learns of it and fears, on tenable grounds, that it will put his life in danger. The newspaper, also on tenable grounds, considers his fear unrealistic. ...it seems to me inescapable that section 12(4) makes the right to life, which is protected by Article 2 and implicitly recognised by Article 10(2), as relevant as the right of free expression to the court`s decision; and in so doing it also makes Article 17 (which prohibits the abuse of rights) relevant."
Evidence from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
If the identity and present whereabouts of the claimants were disclosed it would affect the units, which are not entirely secure. Each unit has public access and is easy to observe from outside. It would be possible for strangers to come within the perimeter of each unit. That, in turn, would affect movements within the units. There is a greater risk of the claimants being bullied or victimised by other inmates if further restrictions are placed on all of them by reason of press or others visiting the units. A major concern is the possibility of intrusive publicity identifying either of the claimants. It would also affect the rights of mobility of all inmates including the claimants. The units are working towards the reintegration of the claimants into the community and it is in the public interest that this aim is achieved.
"In the past we have received quite explicit hate mail for the attention of Robert and staff who care for him, for example, from three ex-army members "to the vermin who killed Jamie Bulger we don't forget we will get the job done".
"other life licensees have usually been able successfully to re-integrate into society – however notorious they were at the time of the offence. The claimants are notorious. Indeed in my experience, they are uniquely notorious. I cannot think of any other case – past or present – which has given rise to similar concerns. The court should not think that cases like this are going to arise very often. Unlike most other notorious murderers (whose offences and appearances fade in public consciousness and interest during the course of their long incarceration) the claimants' cases have remained in the public eye ever since they were arrested. Since 1993, the appearance of each has changed beyond recognition. But their new appearances have not been made public. So a reporting restraint in these cases has a better chance of being effective than in many other cases. Were, conversely, their identities and/or appearances as adults to be made public before they are released, or thereafter, it seems inevitable that they would be recognised anywhere in the United Kingdom with all the attendant difficulties that would entail."
Evidence of risk reported by the Press
An uncle of the victim said..."if the judge's recommendation is followed, then the streets won't be safe in eight years time".
Following the newspaper's campaign - an article set out that 80,000 telephone calls had been made to the Television channel to say Bulger killers must rot in jail. Coupon attached to the article to be sent by readers to the Home Secretary expressing support for the view that the claimants should stay in prison for life.
The mother of the victim said.... "They aren't safe to walk the streets. We must not give them the chance to do it again."
In an article titled "Society must be protected from this pair of monsters", Denise Bulger said "I will do everything in my power to keep them caged and I hope that Jack Straw will back me up. If they ever do get out I have sworn to go looking for them. When I find them they will wish they were dead. I will make sure they know what it is to really suffer...wherever they go mothers like me will be after their blood".
In an article titled "Throw away the key" - "...if Venables and Thompson returned to Liverpool "they would be lynched – and nobody would shed a tear. The pair of them should stay inside for the rest of their natural lives. They took a baby's life. So why should they be allowed a life of their own?".
In an article titled "Bulger father vows to hunt killers" Ralph Bulger was reported as having said on GMTV "Something's got to be done about it. We can't just stop now, and let these two little animals get released...I will do all I can to try my best to hunt them down".
Dee Warner, of Mama [a victim's support group, Mothers Against Murder and Aggression] was also quoted "you could say you shouldn't take the law into your own hands but if the law worked for the victims rather than the criminals there wouldn't be these vigilantes attacks. I couldn't advocate anyone being murdered but I haven't had a child murdered so I am not in a position to say how I would feel".
In an article titled "Bulger vigilantes are terrorising my family" it was reported that vigilantes had threatened to burn down the home of a woman they wrongly suspect is the mother of one of James Bulger's killers.
"When freed, they will have new identities to shield them from vigilante attacks"
"...like Mary Bell...they are likely to be constantly looking over their shoulders in fear they have been tracked down by vigilantes"
There has also been Press coverage of the family of each claimant, see for example:
"Both the Bulger and Matthews families firmly believe the parents of Thompson and Venables should have been in the docks with their sons. "As far as we are concerned they are equally as evil and equally to blame. They should have been charged with murder along with those bastards."
"Ray said: "What really hurts us is that Thompson and Venables' parents have tried to make themselves out to be caring in the media. But no normal, loving, caring parent allows their children to play truant, shoplift, terrorise old ladies and kill animals. They were never there to look after them yet they must have known what arrogant, aggressive little bastards they are. If they didn't have any idea just what kind of parents are they?"."
"Jamie Killer's runaway father hides in shame"
"Susan [Venables] had remarried but her second husband couldn't cope as their home was besieged by angry people wanting to hang her son".
In addition Mr Pike, to whom I refer below, in his statement at volume 2 page 310:
"some sections of the public and the media at the time of the trial and since have reacted strongly against the claimants, their crimes and their being released. It cannot be expected that such strong opinions will not be aired and indeed it would be a curtailment of the freedom of expression to prevent publication of such opinion."
Evidence relied upon by the claimants to show the likelihood of Press coverage if there were no injunctions:
"Why we can't tell full story"
"Killers Robert Thompson and Jon Venables are protected from public scrutiny thanks to the ruling made after their trial in 1993.
"The judge, Mr Justice Morland, set out terms for a wide-ranging injunction banning the media from revealing any details about the boys' lives in secure units. It also prevented the press from approaching anyone involved in their rehabilitation, and outlawed photos taken of them after a certain date.
"At 18 the boys would normally lose the protection given to juveniles. But their lawyers want the High Court to extend the order for the rest of their lives.
"The Sun will fight this unprecedented application next month."
"...These two brutal killers must be kept in custody until they are CERTAIN not to re-offend.
"When this happens, it is proposed they be granted anonymity and the full protection of the State – so that it becomes an offence to report anything more about their lives.
"But the public has a right to know about them. This is yet another example of the law falling over itself to protect the guilty and ride roughshod over the feelings of their victims.
"It would also create a ridiculous precedent for all released criminals to demand that their privacy be protected. And that would be the final insult to the memory of poor, murdered James Bulger."
Press coverage of tariff set by Lord Chief Justice:
"As freedom beckons for the murderers of James Bulger
Has justice betrayed the little boy who was never allowed to grow up?"
"The mother left with only tears".
"Before you judge what is written in these pages, you need to recall exactly what they did to little James"
"Sinister image: James is led away to his death."
"Now, a splendid new life beckons."
"They will enjoy full support from the welfare services."
"CRAZY James Bulger's killers tortured the two-year-old to death. Our top judge says they should go free early because jail would expose them to drugs and violence."
"James' mum: they have got away with MURDER."
"WE'LL NEVER FORGIVE THEM."
Evidence from the defendant Newspapers.
"The murder of James Bulger was a truly horrific crime...
Why this crime provoked an extreme public reaction can be easily understood. The crime itself threatened the security of all mothers of young children. The crime was exceptionally cruel. The crime offended against the assumptions made by most members of the public about the criminal capabilities of pre-adolescent boys. The killing itself attracted enormous publicity as did the ensuing trial and sentencing process...
The situation in which the Secretary of State and his advisers found themselves was wholly exceptional. A climate of opinion had been built up in which it was very difficult to make an adequate decision on what was required for retribution and deterrence. The situation had become overlaid by a range of public pressures which lost sight of the two defendants as immature individuals and got bound up with when, many years later, it might become publicly acceptable to release the murderers of James Bulger from custody on licence."
"It is plain from his decision letters that the Secretary of State did indeed have regard, when he made his decision to fix the penal element in the applicants' sentences at 15 years, to the petitions and letters to which I have already referred.
"That there was public concern about this terrible case, there can be no doubt. Any humane person must have felt, not only the deepest sympathy for little James Bulger and his family, but horror that two boys as young as the two applicants should have perpetrated such a brutal crime. The Home Secretary hardly needed the media to inform him of this. But events such as this tend to provoke a desire for revenge, and call for the infliction of the severest punishment upon the perpetrators of the crime. This elemental feeling is perhaps natural, though in today's society there is a tendency for it to be whipped up and exploited by the media. When this happens it can degenerate into something less acceptable. Little credit can be given to favourable responses to a campaign that the two applicants should "rot in jail" for the rest of their lives...".
"The murder...was a cruel and sadistic crime. It is made even more horrific by the fact that the applicants were only 10 ½ years old at the time. It is not surprising that the case has given rise to much public concern and, indeed, outrage."
"The inexpressible grief of the family of the murdered boy will never cease. The family, the local community and society generally are morally outraged."
"The trial was preceded and accompanied by massive national and international publicity. Throughout the criminal proceedings, the arrival of the defendants was greeted by a hostile crowd. On occasion, attempts were made to attack the vehicles bringing them to court."
And at page 133, paragraph 14:
"In his summing-up to the jury the trial judge noted that the witnesses had arrived in court in a blaze of publicity and many had faced a bevy of photographers."
"the crime had many aggravating features, including the age of the victim, the period over which the violence stretched and its degrading nature, and what was done with the body of the victim.
He (Morland J) considered that there was a very real risk of revenge attacks upon them from others. This risk is confirmed by the information before me."
In accordance with the law.
" It is well known that this court in Kaye v Robertson  FSR 62 said in uncompromising terms that there was no tort of privacy known to English law. In contrast, both academic commentary and extra-judicial commentary by judges over the last ten years have suggested from time to time that a development of the present frontiers of a breach of confidence action could fill the gap in English law which is filled by privacy law in other developed countries. This commentary was given a boost recently by the decision of the European Commission on Human Rights in Earl Spencer and Countess Spencer v the United Kingdom 25 EHRR 105, and by the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998."
Keene LJ said at paragraph 166
" ....breach of confidence is a developing area of the law, the boundaries of which are not immutable but may change to reflect changes in society, technology and business practice."
Necessary in a democratic society to satisfy a strong and pressing need
Proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
"....when a fundamental right such as the right to life is involved, the options open to the reasonable decision-maker are curtailed. They are curtailed because it is unreasonable to reach a decision which contravenes or could contravene human rights unless there are sufficiently significant countervailing considerations. In other words it is not open to the decision-maker to risk interfering with fundamental rights in the absence of compelling justification..."
With that warning from Lord Woolf in mind, in my judgment, the appropriate measures to be taken, within the scope of my powers, would be to grant injunctions. This would have the effect of substantially reducing the risk to each of the claimants.
"In this context Parliament cannot have been using likely in the sense of more likely than not. If the word likely were given this meaning, it would have the effect of leaving outside the scope of care and supervision orders cases where the court is satisfied there is a real possibility of significant harm to the child in the future but that possibility falls short of being more likely than not...
"What is in issue is the prospect, or risk, of the child suffering significant harm...
"In my view therefore, the context shows that in section 31(2)(a) likely is being used in the sense of a real possibility, a possibility that cannot sensibly be ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the feared harm in the particular case."
Orders Contra Mundum
"Let me say at once that, if it were not an exercise of the wardship jurisdiction, I am satisfied that there would be no such power."
He held that not only would it not be fair to injunct one newspaper from publishing information which could identify the ward by her relationship to the mother, Mary Bell, but that the harm to the ward, which prohibition of publication is intended to prevent, would also be caused by publication in any other newspaper or medium. He referred to Z Ltd v A  1 All ER 556), in which the Court of Appeal held that Mareva injunctions operated against the world at large, or at least against those members of the public who have notice of the existence of the order. He was satisfied that:
"If the court can protect proprietary interests in that way, as it clearly can, how much more should it be able to protect the interests of its wards if it is satisfied in a proper case that the interests of its wards require protection in this form?".
Protection of information during period February1993 to August 2000
(i) Health information.
4. All information about the claimants, whether during their detention or at any other time, whether by records or otherwise, which relates to their medical, psychological, or therapeutic care is, in principle, confidential. That confidentiality would, in my view, extend to art, or any other form of therapy, and to all those taking part in group therapy, and not only the therapist. As I understood it, all Counsel agreed with this proposition, see Hunter v Mann  QB 767 at page 772, W v Edgell  Ch 359.
(ii) Information from social workers and carers
In re G (A Minor)(Social Worker:Disclosure)  2 All ER 65 I said at page 68
"The information obtained by social workers in the course of their duties is, however, confidential, and covered by the umbrella of public interest immunity." (see also re W (Minors) (Social Worker:Disclosure)  2 FLR 135.)
I referred in re G (above) to a long line of authority that social services department case records were not to be produced on discovery nor disclosed in court proceedings unless a judge ruled to the contrary, see for instance D v NSPCC  AC 171. I referred also to local authority circulars on confidentiality of personal information held by local authorities. Each secure unit is managed by a local authority. The confidentiality extends to all those having the care of the two claimants in the secure units. Mr Fitzgerald accepted that there was a legitimate public interest in the general information about the regime to which each of the claimants have been subjected. He continued, however, to seek a ban on the publication of historical information during the period covered by the injunctions granted by Morland J, because it pertained to information previously covered by injunctions.
(iii) Information from co-detainees
5. In my judgment, there is no basis upon which an injunction can in general be granted to prevent a co-detainee from approaching or being approached by a member of the Press and speaking about either claimant, save insofar as any revelation was likely to reveal their present appearance or whereabouts or disclose plainly confidential matters. The co-detainee would not, for example, be entitled to provide, and the newspaper cannot publish, information, which is confidential, such as attending therapy sessions together.
(iv) Identification of the Secure Units
6. I can see, however, the necessity for providing a period after the release of the claimants during which no information should be made public which might lead to the identification of the units where they have been detained, since that may lead to the identification of their future whereabouts. Such an injunction would be designed to protect the future, and not the past, and it should not be necessary to impose it for more than a limited period. I am not at present certain how long it should be. I incline towards 12 months, but this is a matter upon which it would be helpful to hear further submissions. I should like the help of counsel. As I have already indicated, I should also like the assistance of Counsel on the actual wording of the injunctions and the order.
The information to be protected
I am also aware that the Parole Board will soon be making enquiries and compiling a report for consideration at the Parole Board hearing. It is, in my view, essential that the nature of the enquiries, the content of the report and the hearing itself must be covered by the injunctions.
Other grounds relied on to establish jurisdiction
A. Protection of the statutory right to rehabilitation
"On the important question of the authority's powers and the circumstances in which it can seek the aid of the court, I respectfully agree with Lord Woolf MR and would adopt his ultimate formulation which is in these terms:
If a public body is given statutory responsibility which it is required to perform in the public interest, then, in the absence of an implication to the contrary in the statute, it has standing to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent interference with its performance of its public responsibilities and the court should grant such an application when "it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."
Inherent jurisdiction to grant injunctions to prevent crime and to protect the administration of justice or free-standing claim based upon Convention rights.