V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCOP 88
RRO "I do not propose to say very much in this judgment. The reason I do not propose to say very much is that I am pleased to report that the media respondents have indicated to me that they would wish to put in some further evidence relating to the public interest in identifying C. They would also wish to (and I can understand why they would wish to) put in evidence relating to criticism of an approach by a journalist employed by one of them. Additionally and, to my mind, importantly, they also wish to take the opportunity, if so advised, to put in evidence and/or representations on more general points concerning the mechanics and principles that arise in respect of Court of Protection proceedings that the court directs are to be heard in public and in respect of which the court makes some form of reporting restriction order or anonymity order. ... In those circumstances, it seems to me that it is inevitably appropriate to continue the injunction until 4.30 on the day I hand down judgment. The indication from the Bar is that there will be no need for further oral submissions."
Full judgment: BAILII
Subject(s):
- Reporting restriction order cases🔍 Older RRO cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases
Date: 9/12/15🔍
Court: Court of Protection🔍
Judicial history:
Judge(s):
- Charles🔍
Parties:
Citation number(s):
- [2015] EWCOP 88B
- [2015] MHLO 128
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v C [2015] EWCOP 80
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 21
- V v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCOP 29
Published: 22/12/15 21:37
Cached: 2025-04-11 18:03:04
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: