Key Facts
- •Appeals concern the principles for varying/discharging Reporting Restriction Orders (RROs) in end-of-life proceedings.
- •RROs protect identities of those involved in the care of patients where treatment withdrawal is considered.
- •Rashid and Aliya Abbasi (parents of Zainab) and Lanre Haastrup (father of Isaiah) appeal against RROs.
- •Zainab had Niemann-Pick Type C and swine flu-related lung damage; parents disagreed with Newcastle Hospital's palliative care approach.
- •Isaiah had a hypoxic brain injury due to hospital negligence; parents criticized King's College Hospital's care.
- •RROs prevent parents from publicly discussing their children's treatment and death.
- •The appeals consider the High Court's jurisdiction to make and continue RROs and the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.
- •Interveners include several medical organizations supporting the RROs.
- •The President upheld the RROs, finding insufficient detail in parents' allegations and a substantial risk of harassment to clinicians.
Legal Principles
High Court's inherent parens patriae jurisdiction allows RROs to protect those who cannot protect themselves and the integrity of proceedings.
Wellesley v. Duke of Beaufort [1827] 2 Russ. 1
Since the Human Rights Act 1998, the jurisdiction to restrain publicity is derived from Convention rights under the ECHR, balancing Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Re S [2004] UKHL 47
Neither Article 8 nor 10 has precedence; an intense fact-sensitive balancing exercise is needed, considering justifications for interfering with each right and proportionality.
Re S [2004] UKHL 47; Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to act compatibly with Convention rights; it does not create a free-standing cause of action.
In re British Broadcasting Corporation [2009] UKHL 34
Courts have inherent jurisdiction and powers under Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to grant injunctions where just and convenient, including to protect the integrity of proceedings and administration of justice.
Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981; In re Guardian News and Media [2010] UKSC 1
Publication must constitute a serious interference with private life to undermine personal integrity to justify curtailing freedom of expression.
In re Guardian News and Media [2010] UKSC 1
In balancing Articles 8 and 10, compelling evidence is needed to curtail freedom of speech; this reflects the high value attached to freedom of speech.
Various cases including Re S, In re Guardian News and Media, A v. Ward
Outcomes
Appeals allowed; RROs discharged.
The article 10 rights of the parents to express their concerns and experiences outweigh the limited article 8 rights of the staff involved, considering the time elapsed since the proceedings and the lack of evidence of continuing harm.