View source for Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2023) EWCA Civ 331

{{Case
|Date=2023/03/31
|NCN=[2023] EWCA Civ 331
|ICLR=[2023] WLR(D) 166
|ICLR ID=2021003202
|Essex issue=131
|Essex page=31
|Court=Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
|Judges=Burnett, King, Carr
|Parties=Rashid Abbasi, Aliya Abbasi, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Lanre Haastrup, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Royal College of Nursing, British Medical Association, Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Paediatric Critical Care Society
|Sentence=RROs in end-of-life proceedings
|Summary="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."
|Subject=Reporting restriction order cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2023/06/26 08:06:30 PM
}}