The High Court has granted interlocutory relief protecting an infant’s privacy in a dispute over a newspaper’s proposed coverage of his parentage and the circumstances of his conception.
Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on 24 October 2014 that the Sunday World should be restrained in the same form as an interim order made on 18 October by Mr Justice Moriarty. The earlier order barred publication of material identifying the infant or his mother in reports of the proceedings, and restrained publication identifying the child, expressly or implicitly, as the subject of controversy about his conception or parentage, pending further court order.
The application followed a Sunday World article published on 19 October. It alleged that a gangland figure had fathered children while imprisoned and referred to prison rules, the child’s birth certificate and surname. The child and his mother were not named in that article. The court was told the newspaper proposed a follow-up naming the man and publishing photographs, while not naming the child or his mother.
The child’s solicitor argued that linking him to speculation about paternity or conception could harm his welfare. A consultant clinical psychologist’s report, dated 22 October, said the child was at risk of serious psychological problems if such speculation continued. The newspaper relied on freedom of expression and argued that the child’s parents were identifiable from a public birth record. Its counsel also submitted that an injunction imposed prior restraint and required careful scrutiny.
The judge said the newspaper was entitled to publish a story about prison rules and conjugal rights. He found, for the purposes of this application, that the first article’s wording had brought the child’s parentage and birth-certificate details into the story. Accepting the psychologist’s report in the absence of contrary evidence, he concluded that the child had shown a convincing case for restricting publication that would call his parentage into question.
The ruling grants interlocutory protection; it is not a final determination of the underlying action. The judge directed that counsel be heard on the form of the order to be drawn up. The judgment does not prohibit the general prison-regulations story, provided the child’s parentage is not drawn into it in the manner described.