Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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