Category:Reporting restriction order cases
Note that this is a relatively new website category and most RRO cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases.
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Discharge of transparency order Re VS (deceased) [2024] EWCOP 6 — The transparency order was discharged, the two main factors being (a) public interest in the facts of the case, and (b) the subject of the proceedings had died. | 2024‑12‑06 21:27:01 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2023 cases, Reporting restriction order cases
|
| * Reporting Berg v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2024] EWFC 92 — Journalists applied to court for hearing transcripts and other documents relating to the deprivation of liberty of someone who is now an adult but at the time was a child. | 2024‑10‑14 12:17:12 | Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, Cases, 2024 cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Reporting restriction order cases
|
| * Discharge of RRO University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust v Thirumalesh [2023] EWCOP 43 — Following the patient's death, her family applied for discharge of a transparency order, and the Trust argued for its continuation for a further 8 weeks. The judge noted that there is little practical difference between transparency orders and reporting restrictions orders (RROs) and uniform terminology would be more desirable. | 2024‑10‑10 11:11:44 |
|
| * RROs in end-of-life proceedings Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 — "These appeals concern the principles to be applied when a court considers an application to vary or discharge a Reporting Restriction Order ("RRO") made long before in end-of-life proceedings in the High Court. ... The orders made in these cases provide for the indefinite continuation of injunctions against the world prohibiting publication of the names of a small number of clinicians in the Abbasi case and a wide range of health service staff in the Haastrup case. The intense focus on the specific rights being claimed delivers the clear conclusion that the article 10 rights of the parents in wishing to "tell their story" outweigh such article 8 rights of clinicians and staff as may still be in play, long after the RROs were made in the respective end-of-life proceedings. The wider systemic concerns which affect the operation of the NHS laid before the court by representative bodies cannot justify the creation of a practice, not anchored to the specific circumstances of the case, of granting indefinite anonymity to those involved in end-of-life proceedings. Such a step is one that is controversial and intensely political and suitable for Parliament rather than the courts." | 2023‑06‑26 20:18:36 | 2023 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Paedophilia A Local Authority v H [2023] EWCOP 4 — "H prefers to be referred to by female pronouns. ... H has expressed a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. ... In the opinion of a highly experienced psychiatrist, instructed in these proceedings, H presents a real risk of sexual harm to children, both in contact with them and online. ... The Court has been asked to consider H's capacity to take decisions in the following areas: (i) Residence; (ii) Care/support; (iii) Contact with others (both adults and children); (iv) Use of the internet and social media." | 2023‑06‑06 21:11:13 | 2023 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Sex and marriage cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Participation - anonymity - transparency order Re EM [2022] EWCOP 31 — This judgment considered participation by the protected person, anonymity, and the correctness of the standard transparency order. (1) The fundamental rule is that, where an application is made which seeks the deprivation of the protected person's liberty, he must be joined as a party to the proceedings and a litigation friend (or an accredited legal representative) must be appointed to act for him, with the only exception being where an interim order is very urgently needed and there is just not enough time to secure his representation before the hearing (but at the hearing his representation at future hearings must be enabled). An unjustified failure by the court to secure such representation when making a non-urgent deprivation of liberty order will very likely render the order unlawful. (2) The anonymisation of orders (as opposed to published judgments) should cease. (3) The transparency order in this case may have been technically unsound for two separate reasons (which are both condoned by r4 COPR and PD4C): (a) it was made in the absence of a Re S-type balancing exercise, weighing the Article 8 ECHR rights of EM with the Article 10 ECHR rights of the public at large, exercised via the press; and (b) notice of the intention to seek the order had not been given to the press pursuant to s12(2) HRA 1998. | 2022‑10‑27 20:44:44 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Residence - reporting restrictions Re J (Deprivation of Liberty: Hospital) [2022] EWHC 2687 (Fam) — "J is a 13-year-old girl with complex needs who was made the subject of an interim care order on 20 July 2022 in favour of the Applicant Council/Manchester City Council. The Council has a statutory duty to place J in a placement but for about three months now it has not been able to find any accommodation for her and so she has been living in a hospital. J does not want to live in a hospital. She has no physical or mental health requirement for in-patient treatment and the environment of a hospital is not at all suitable for her needs but the Council has not been able to find any alternative place for her to live. A team of agency care staff funded by the Local Authority attend the hospital to look after her. J's presence in the hospital and the attention she requires cause disruption and adversely affect the ability of hospital staff to care for their patients. Resources that should be used to treat someone who requires in-patient care are being used to house a child who does not require in-patient care. All parties in this case agree that J needs to be placed somewhere else but such is the state of provision for children with complex needs in England and Wales that there has been nowhere else for J to go." | 2022‑10‑26 20:51:18 | 2022 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty - children, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Covert medication - closed proceedings Re A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44 — "This case concerns closed proceedings at which the Court of Protection has authorised the covert administration of hormone treatment to a young woman without the knowledge of her family. A is the subject of these proceedings. B is her mother. This judgment is published as a single judgment but Part One follows a closed hearing on 15 September 2022, to which B was not a party, on the Trust’s application in relation to the covert medication of A. Part Two follows an open hearing involving all parties on 20-22 September 2022. Given my decisions (i) to approve the continuation of covert medication but (ii) to end the closed proceedings and to inform B of the covert treatment of A, I circulated my draft judgment in Part One to all parties’ representatives during the open hearing. B was then made a party to the Trust’s application and the closed proceedings bundle of documents was disclosed to her. At the open hearing I gave oral rulings on the next steps in the proceedings, contact, and reporting restrictions, and informed the parties that I would prepare a written judgment on those issues. I then circulated my full draft judgment. This judgment, approved for publication in anonymised form, includes both the closed and open judgments. The paragraph numbering is consecutive over the two parts." | 2022‑10‑13 20:22:04 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Reporting restriction order LF v A NHS Trust [2022] EWCOP 8 — G's father asked for the reporting restrictions to be discharged to allow G's story to be shared in relation to a proposed crowd-funding campaign. In applying the usual balancing exercise, the judge noted that "the Article 10 right asserted by the father is to pursue, in the public domain, an outcome which has been assessed as contrary to his daughter's interests", and concluded that the restrictions should continue. | 2022‑07‑22 21:04:01 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Private hearing A Midlands NHS Trust v RD [2021] EWCOP 36 — This case (about non-treatment of anorexia) should be held in private, in particular because RD's wish that intensely personal matters be not discussed in public. | 2022‑03‑30 10:21:46 | 2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| * Reporting restrictions Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Verden [2022] EWCOP 4 — Successful application to vary Reporting Restriction Order. The expectation, except in very unusual cases, is for any party applying for a reporting restrictions order to set out what media coverage had already taken place. | 2022‑02‑24 21:26:36 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Press access to hearing Kent County Council v P [2022] EWCOP 3 — "The issue in this judgment is whether the public should be admitted to the Court of Protection proceedings concerning P and whether this judgment should be published." | 2022‑02‑24 21:22:37 | 2022 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Injunction against publication of video Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust v AB [2019] EWCOP 11 — "This is an application to prevent publication of a video of a patient, AB, in her treating hospital. ... At times she is catatonic and lies in a foetal position on the floor. She has a history during these periods of self-harm, and for that reason she wears protective headgear at all times. In the light of AB's condition and the difficulties in accommodating her appropriately, the Trust has had to adapt the room in which she has been living urgently, and it is true to say that the condition of the room therefore looks somewhat poor. ... On about 20 January 2019, AB's son, W, who is the second respondent, took a video recording of his mother in her room. ... I am clear that it is appropriate in these circumstances to make the order. First of all, having seen the video, it is apparent that AB can be identified, even if pixilated, and would be identifiable from the information that Mail Online intend to publish. ... Secondly, it is clear from Dr Marlowe's statements that AB does not currently have capacity ... Thirdly, I have no doubt, having watched it, that the video would be an interference with AB's privacy and her private life. ... The draft order provides for W being able to apply to the court at a full hearing if he wishes to do so to seek to lift the injunction, and argue that it is in her interests to publish the video. Further, according to Dr Marlowe, AB may well regain capacity herself relatively shortly, i.e. within a matter of weeks, and if she then wishes for publication, that will be a matter for her." | 2019‑03‑23 17:33:15 | 2019 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Best interests/transparency PW v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1067 — "Two central criticisms are made of the judgment below, and the judge's determination of best interests. First, that the judge failed to appreciate and therefore give any or any adequate weight to RW's wishes and feeling. These were, contrary to her findings, ascertainable; they pointed to the fact that he was a "fighter", to the value he ascribed to life and to his desire to "hold fast to it" no matter how "poor" or "vestigial" in nature it was. Secondly, the judge overstated the risk that having the NG tube in place would pose for RW at home and the burden this would place on him, in circumstances where the dedicated care his sons could provide would remove or mitigate that risk. In the result, and in any event, it is submitted the judge's overall analysis of what was in RW's best interests failed adequately to address the relevant issues and evidence, and was a flawed one. In my view neither criticism is well-founded." Another aspect of this case related to the transparency order/reporting restrictions. | 2018‑05‑22 20:40:44 | 2018 cases, Best interests, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2018 cases
|
| * Medical treatment, costs, anonymity Re SW [2017] EWCOP 7 — (1) "[A]s matters stand, the transplant being proposed cannot proceed, whatever the court may say or do. As it has been presented to the court, this scarcely coherent application is totally without merit, it is misconceived and it is vexatious. It would be contrary to every principle of how litigation ought to be conducted in the Court of Protection, and every principle of proper case management, to allow this hopelessly defective application to proceed on the forlorn assumption that the son could somehow get his tackle in order and present a revised application which could somehow avoid the fate of its predecessor." (2) "As against the son, the claim for costs could not, in my judgment, be clearer. Given everything I have said, this is the plainest possible case for departing from the ordinary rule, set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, and applying the principles set out in rule 159. ... [B]oth Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, in my judgment, are persons against whom a costs order can be made even though are not, formally, parties to the litigation – and, if that is so, then for the same reasons as in relation to the son, it is, in my judgment, fair and just to order them to pay the costs." (3) "There is no reason why either SW or SAN should be named, and, indeed, every reason why they should not. Nor, in all the circumstances, is there any reason why the son should be named. Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, however, stand in a very different position. There is a very strong public interest in exposing the antics which these two struck-off doctors have got up to, not least so that others may be protected from their behaviour." | 2018‑03‑28 22:40:05 | 2017 cases, Anonymisation cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21, [2016] MHLO 41 — "The application before me is for a reporting restrictions order that extends beyond the period of the reporting restrictions order granted at the first hearing for directions in the case and was not altered by Macdonald J. By its terms it ended on C's death." | 2016‑10‑09 14:39:52 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
|
| * Reporting restriction order UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v G [2016] EWCOP 28 — "This brief judgment concerns an application by the Applicant Health Trust for the variation of a reporting restriction order (RRO) made by Hogg J on 11 March 2016 in proceedings concerning the Respondent, Miss G. That order, which is expressed to last until one month after Miss G's death, prohibits her identification or the identification of members of her family, all of whom are adults, as being concerned in these proceedings. The Trust, supported by the family, now asks for the order to be extended indefinitely. That application is opposed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of Miss G and by the Press Association in submissions lodged on its behalf by Mr Dodd." | 2016‑10‑09 14:11:26 | 2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Reporting restriction order cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| M v Press Association [2016] EWCOP 34, [2016] MHLO 39 — "The hearing had taken place over four days in early November. On 2 November 2015 I made a reporting restriction order, prohibiting the identification of the first respondent and Mrs N in any press reporting 'during her lifetime'. I also decided that, for a period of seven days after her death, the injunction should continue. On 17 December 2015 the applicant, M, applied to vary the RRO to extend its duration until '14 days after the final judgment in the matter of V v Associated Newspapers Ltd' [2016] EWCOP 21M. In that case, to which I will refer below, Charles J was considering the scope and ambit of such Reporting Restriction Orders following the death of P. On 13 January 2016 I varied the order in the terms applied for, no party sought to contest it. On 16 December 2015 Mrs N died. On 25 April 2016 Charles J delivered the judgment in V (supra) and on 4 May 2016 M applied to vary the RRO to extend the duration 'until further order of the court'." | 2016‑10‑09 13:55:42 | 2016 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Reporting restriction order cases, Transcript, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii
|
Article titles
The following 18 pages are in this category.
A
M
R
U
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: