Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

HUMAN RIGHTS/PUBLICITY: Leeds City Council v Channel Four Television Corporation [2006] 2 FLR (forthcoming)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:28 PM
Slug : leeds-city-council-v-channel-four-television-corporation-2006-2-flr-forthcoming
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 6, 2006, 04:21 AM
Article ID : 85209

(Family Division; Munby J; 6 July 2006)

Channel Four had produced a documentary about state schools which involved surreptitious filming in four schools. One of the schools had been chosen to show how behaviour problems could be prevented, but the footage from the other three schools showed children who were out of control. In response to concerns expressed by the relevant local authority about children in its care, in all cases the heads of the children had been obscured to help prevent the identification of any individuals. However, two of the children, appearing by their parents as litigation friends, sought to injunct Channel Four from broadcasting the film on the basis that the surreptitious filming was in breach of obligations of confidence enforceable at common law or equity and in breach of the Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 right of privacy. The schools themselves were identified as were year groups, and the children would be identifiable within the immediate locality.

A balancing exercise between the competing human rights had to be undertaken, which in this case came down strongly in favour of the broadcasters. The particular problem which was being aired was capable of being brought to public attention only if surreptitious methods were used. There had been no breach of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, and the film raised matters of very great public concern. It was not appropriate merely to exclude footage of the two children who had brought the action, although that would have only marginal impact upon the message and content of the film as a whole, as there were no particular circumstances to justify protection of these children, as opposed to the other children portrayed.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from