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


Sep 29, 2018, 17:37 PM
Slug : t-v-bbc-2007-ewhc-1683-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 11, 2007, 04:23 AM
Article ID : 88887

(Queen's Bench Division; Eady J; 11 July 2007)

The 18 year-old mother had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. Her two year old daughter was placed with foster/adoptive parents while an assessment of the relationship between the mother and daughter was carried out. The result was a decision that the child should be adopted.

This process, including the last contact session between the mother and daughter, was filmed by the BBC as part of a series on adoption. The Official Solicitor on the mother's behalf sought an injunction preventing the identification of the mother in the television programme on the basis that she did not have capacity to give informed consent to either the participation in the programme or its broadcast and that as such the broadcast would be an intrusion upon her privacy.

It was not necessary to determine first of all whether the broadcast would be in T's best interests, although this was relevant. Broadcast of the programme would constitute a massive invasion of T's privacy and autonomy, and would undermine her dignity as a human being. There was no advantage for T which would outweigh the violation of her privacy which the making of the programme and its broadcast would represent.

Notwithstanding the genuine public interest in the subject of adoption and childcare and the intention of the programme to present a serious and informative coverage of the subject, the value of the broadcaster's expression in terms of Art 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (the Convention) could not be proportionate to the exposure of T's feelings and of her treatment of and relationship with her child. In almost every case the public interest in favour of publication could be satisfied without identifying the child in question: there was no need to identify either the child or the vulnerable mother in this case. The fundamental invasion of T's Art 8 rights could not be justified and the injunction would be granted.

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