Restricted Reporting Order guidance on granting

In this case, the right to privacy prevailed over the principle of open justice and the right of individuals and the press to report proceedings in accordance with the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was held that the Respondent and the third party had a right to privacy regarding sexual allegations made about their private life and there was no public interest to be served in identifying either of them. The EAT also considered that the proceedings had been brought as an act of revenge and in an attempt to obtain significant amounts of money through blackmail. Furthermore, refusing to grant the Restricted Reporting Order would have adverse consequences on a child in having his mother, the third party, identified as a participant in sexual activity and a pornographic photograph. When a Restricted Reporting Order is requested, a balance has to be struck between the right to privacy under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of open justice and freedom of expression under article 10. In this case the right of privacy took precedence.

This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.

For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.