Key Facts
- •The BBC applied to vary a Transparency Order to include MC's situation in a documentary.
- •MC has a range of difficulties, including attachment and anxiety disorders, a moderate learning disability, and ADHD.
- •MC recently went on a hunger strike and has made recent progress in his treatment.
- •The application sought to identify MC, his family, and his current accommodation (a secure mental health unit).
- •The BBC proposed using images from at least 12 months prior and possibly voice notes.
- •The court considered the balance between MC's Article 8 rights (respect for private and family life) and the BBC's Article 10 rights (freedom of expression).
Legal Principles
Balancing exercise between Article 8 and Article 10 rights.
Re S [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593, Abbasi & Haastrup v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331
Transparency Orders are rooted in Rule 4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and should not unduly restrict freedom of expression.
Court of Protection Rules 2017, Administration of Justice Act 1960
Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has precedence over the other; an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights in the individual case is necessary.
Re S [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593
Outcomes
The BBC's application was dismissed.
The court found that MC's Article 8 rights (risk to his therapeutic progress and wellbeing) outweighed the BBC's Article 10 rights. The potential harm to MC's recovery and future prospects from participation in the documentary outweighed the public interest in broadcasting his story.