View source for Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam)

''The media sought, not that the CoP hearing be public, but that they be authorised to attend the hearing and be subject to reporting restrictions. CoP proceedings are excluded from the general 'open justice principle' so the media's [[Article 10]] rights are not automatically engaged, and the court must rather adopt a two-stage approach: (1) Whether a 'good reason' (a gatekeeping test from the Rules, the standard for which is not high) for making the order can be established; (2) If there is a 'good reason', a balancing test must be applied to P's [[Article 8]] rights and the media's Article 10 rights. On the facts: (1) There was a 'good reason' as (a) the issues were already in the public domain, (b) the court's powers can preserve privacy, and (c) it is the public interest to understand how the court operates; (2) The media would be allowed to attend, as the concerns for privacy and publicity could both be met by permitting some reporting but requiring the media to demonstrate what should be allowed.'' [See appeal judgment.]

==Related judgments==
*[[Re P (2010) EWHC 1592 (Fam)]]
*[[Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2010) EWCA Civ 343]]
:*[[Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam)]] 

==Re S (cited in judgment)==
The following extract from [[Re S (A Child) (Identification: restrictions on publication) (2004) UKHL 47]], [2005] 1 AC 593 deals with the balancing test:
:"The interplay between article 8 and 10 has been illuminated by the opinions in the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457. For present purposes the decision of the House on the facts of Campbell and the differences between the majority and the minority are not material. What does, however, emerge clearly from the opinions are four propositions. First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test. This is how I will approach the present case."

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Independent News and Media Ltd v A (2009) EWHC 2858 (Fam)}}

==Summary from Court of Protection 2009 Report==
This involved an application by the Independent Newspaper to attend Court of Protection proceedings
relating to a disabled but very talented young man, about whom they and other newspapers had already
published a number of articles. The judge concluded that the media should be allowed to attend these
proceedings, and should be allowed to report two types of material, namely (1) that which is within the
public domain already, and (2) that which answers the legitimate questions of a reasonable person who
knows what is presently within the public domain. The Official Solicitor has appealed this decision.

==Citations==
[2009] EWHC 2858 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 916, [2010] Fam Law 357, [2010] WTLR 55

Duplicate Bailii citation number: [2009] EWHC 2858 (COP)

==See also==
*[[Court of Protection Rules 2007]]

==External links==
{{#bailii:[2009] EWHC 2858 (Fam)}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2009/FAM/IndependentNews_v_A.html ICLR website]

[[Judiciary of England and Wales, 'Court of Protection: 2009 report' (10/6/10)]] - Summary on page 17

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]