This seems a calm and sensible assessment. Children may well be affected by the consequences of their parents' adulterous affairs, though one might think that press coverage would in fact be one of the less serious consequences. Moreover, is there not something unattractive about using the effect of your own behaviour on your children as a means of bolstering your own case against a newspaper?
And is this not even more so in circumstances where the children are not even aware that their rights are being asserted? The Court of Appeal disagreed fundamentally with the approach of Collins J. They criticised the judge for failing to take proper account of the fact that both X and ETK's own wife were opposed to publication, but they reserved their most serious criticism for suggesting that the interests of the children should not tip the balance against publication.
It is unclear from the judgment whether the court was in possession of any evidence about the effect of publication on the children. It is not even clear if the children already knew their father had been having an affair. Whatever the position on the evidence was, Ward LJ was clear about the adverse effects:. The purpose of the injunction is both to preserve the stability of the family while the appellant and his wife pursue a reconciliation and to save the children the ordeal of playground ridicule when that would inevitably follow publicity.
They are bound to be harmed by immediate publicity, both because it would undermine the family as a whole and because the playground is a cruel place where the bullies feed on personal discomfort and embarrassment. Once again, these generalisations seem questionable. Not all children behave like characters from Lord of the Flies.
Many of us with experience of teenage children are more struck by their solidarity and resilience in the face of ordeals such as death and divorce than their cruelty or shark-like tendencies. Ward LJ then proceeded to examine recent Strasbourg and UK Supreme Court authorities which support the proposition that "in all decisions concerning children, their best interests must be paramount".
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. In that case Lord Kerr said:. It is a universal theme of the various international and domestic instruments to which Lady Hale has referred that, in reaching decisions that will affect a child, a primacy of importance must be accorded to his or her best interests.
This is not, it is agreed, a factor of limitless importance in the sense that it will prevail over all considerations. It is a factor, however, that must rank higher than any other.
Ward LJ acknowledged that the issue in immigration cases was a long way removed from the issues in place in ETK , but said nonetheless that the "universal principles [could not] be ignored". While he also recognised that the interests of children do not automatically take precedence over the Convention rights of others, he nonetheless also held that in deciding where the balance lies between protecting privacy rights and rights of free speech, the court "should accord particular weight to the Article 8 rights of any children likely to be affected by the publication, if that would be likely to harm their interests".
On the Inforrm blog, Edward Craven suggests the decision in ETK will "strengthen the hands of many claimants seeking privacy injunctions". It would certainly appear to put the media further on the defensive despite Ward LJ's recognition at [13] of the importance of a free press.
In cases involving children, we will no doubt be hearing a good deal more in the future about the harmful effects that press freedom may have on those children. We must hope that judges hearing injunction applications take a critical look at such arguments and do not simply accept them at face value. As Ward LJ recognised at [19], "the interests of children cannot be treated as a trump card". See further sections 3. Workplace affairs are private - especially if one half of the couple has children 20 April The facts The case concerns a married man, ETK, working in the entertainment industry.
In perhaps the single most striking passage of the judgment, Lord Justice Ward said this: Here the sexual relationship was essentially a private matter. The public interest The judge who refused ETK's application for an injunction was operating as the weekend duty judge and had to deal with the matter quickly and at short notice. In November a well known entertainer began an affair with "X" who was working for the same company.
The entertainer's wife found out causing him to end the relationship with "X" in an attemmpt to save the marriage. In December "X" was informed that she would no longer be needed at the company and news of this leaked to "D". The entertainer applied for an injunction to prevent publication. ETK , a married man in the British entertainment industry, had an affair with X, a colleague. The England and Wales Court of Appeal has ruled the man, who remains married and who has two teenage children, has the right to privacy to protect his family and the News of the World cannot publish the story.
The BBC reported the man, who works in the entertainment industry and is referred to as ETK, began an affair with a woman, known only as X, with whom he worked, in November The man's wife confronted him about the affair in April last year, but the couple decided to stay together for the sake of their children, while he and X decided to maintain their professional relationship. X was fired in December and the details leaked to News of the World , which wanted to write that the affair was the real reason she was sacked.
X became angry after being fired, but made it clear she did not want the story to be made public.
0コメント