Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Rashid Maqsood Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2023] EWCA Civ 331
Two sets of parents wanted to talk about how their kids were treated in the hospital before they died, but the hospital had orders in place to keep the doctors' names secret. The court decided that the parents had the right to talk about it, as long as they don't do anything to endanger the staff involved. The court said that it's not its job to create rules to keep all healthcare workers involved in similar situations anonymous permanently.

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.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.