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
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
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