Warning: SimpleXMLElement::asXML(C:\phpstudy_pro\WWW\sitemaps\sitemap_1.xml.tmp): failed to open stream: Permission denied in C:\phpstudy_pro\WWW\dd.php on line 1341
A (A Local Authority) v PD & Another - 5RB Barristers - AI智能索引
温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/a-a-local-authority-v-pd-another
点击访问原文链接

A (A Local Authority) v PD & Another - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
A (A Local Authority) v PD & Another - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases A (A Local Authority) v PD & Another Reference: [2005] EWHC 1832 (Fam); [2005] EMLR 840

Court: Family Division

Judge: Sir Mark Potter P

Date of judgment: 10 Aug 2005 Summary: Privacy – Criminal Trial - Injunction to restrain identification of defendant and victim - Children - Non-parties - Privacy - Article 8 - Freedom of expression - Article 10

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Adam Wolanski KC (Applicant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Solicitor for Times Newspapers Ltd for the media applicants

Facts PD was charged with murdering his wife at home and placing her body parts in a fridge. On 20 May 2005, before the criminal trial started, an order was made in Children Act proceedings relating to PD’s daughter which on its face prevented the media from identifying PD in reports of the criminal trial. Shortly after the criminal trial started, the matter was referred to the President for interpretation of the 20 May order. The Local Authority applied for an order that, in the event the 20 May order did not in fact prevent the media from identifying PD, the media should in any event be restrained from identifying PD.

Issue (1) Whether the 20 May order restrained the media from identifying PD in reports of the criminal trial; (2) whether an injunction should be granted restraining the media from identifying PD in reports of the criminal trial.

Held (1) The 20 May order did not restrain the media from identifying PD in reports of the criminal trial. While it prohibited publication of PD’s identity, it contained an express exemption for the purposes of reporting the trial. Further, the judge who made the order had neither been referred to Re S nor to the Practice Direction relating to applications affecting the media. (2) No injunction should be granted against the media. Considering the Article 8 rights of PD’s child, and the Article 10 rights of the media, the evidence did not reveal circumstances of such an exceptional or compelling nature as would justify an injunction. The approach of the Local Authority – that no damage had been caused to the public interest by the fact that press reports of the trial had so far not identified PD – was erroneous.

Comment A decision which, unlike Re W, provides encouragement for the press. Emphasis was placed on the difficulties faced by applicants for injunctions in such cases even where, as in this case, the background facts were unusual and sensational. The Local Authority was ordered to pay the costs of the media applicants.

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录