Council secures lifelong reporting restrictions order in favour of 17-year-old

Birmingham City Council has secured a lifelong reporting restrictions order (RRO) in favour of a 17-year-old woman, AB, who was sexually exploited by ten respondents to the proceedings.

Mr Justice Keehan’s original ruling in December 2014 – in which he made injunctive orders against the respondents preventing them from contact or association with AB or with any female under the age of 18 years, previously unknown to them, in a public place – received widespread media coverage.

There had been a RRO in force to protect AB’s identity until she attained her majority in August this year.

The Press Association and Times Newspapers opposed the making of a RRO to extend beyond AB’s 18th birthday.

In Birmingham City Council v Riaz & Ors [2015] EWHC 1857 (Fam) Mr Justice Keehan said he entirely accepted the high importance accorded to the general principle of open justice.

“It was because of the considerable public interest in the issue of CSE [child sexual exploitation] that I directed the matter to be heard in open court in October 2014 and thereafter,” he said.

The High Court judge said the mere fact that there had been only three reported cases of lifelong anonymity being granted in civil/family proceedings, should not deter him from undertaking his primary task which was to undertake a rigorous analysis of the competing Article 8 rights of AB and the Article 10 rights of the press and broadcast media.

“It is plainly in the public interest that the press and broadcast media are able to report proceedings concerning cases of CSE,” Mr Justice Keehan said.

He added that the public had a right to know how local authorities, child protection services, the police and the courts approached and dealt with such cases. “It was for that reason that I gave a judgment in public last December and ordered that each of the respondents should be identified.”

But Mr Justice Keehan continued: “What, however, is in the public interest in identifying AB as a victim of CSE? I confess I can see no such interest at all.

“AB is entitled to respect for her private life. What could be more private and personal than the fact that she has been the victim of CSE? I am satisfied that the fact she has been the victim of CSE is entirely a private and personal matter for AB. If, once she has attained her majority or thereafter, she wishes to make it known that she is a victim of CSE, that must be a matter for her and her alone.”

The judge said he accepted the Press Association and the Times did not wish to identify AB, but noted that their approach did not bind and might not reflect the approach of other members of the press or broadcast media or those who used social media sites.

“I take account and accord considerable weight to the serious adverse consequences for AB if she were to be identified as a victim of CSE in the press, broadcast media or on social media sites,” he said.

The judge added that he accepted the opinions and conclusions of the social worker and the psychologist. “AB remains a very vulnerable young woman. In my judgment adverse publicity about her as a victim of CSE is likely to have a serious deleterious effect on her emotional and psychological well being.”

Mr Justice Keehan continued: “I have earnestly reflected on this difficult issue of whether I should grant a RRO to afford AB lifelong anonymity. I have taken account of the high priority accorded by Parliament and the courts to the protection of victims and especially to young people.

“I have carefully balanced the competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights. On the basis that I find no public interest in identifying AB as a victim of CSE and I find that there are compelling reasons why AB's history of being a victim of CSE should remain confidential and private to her, I am completely satisfied that the balance falls decisively in favour of granting the lifelong RRO sought by the local authority.”

The judge also considered that there was a high public interest in supporting the victims of CSE to come forward and report their abuse to the authorities and to co-operate with them.

“Whilst the issue of lifelong RROs in possible future CSE injunction cases will have to be determined on their own merits, there is a very real risk, in my judgment, that my refusal to grant a RRO in this case, might deter other young victims of CSE from coming forward to the authorities. In principle I propose to make a RRO in favour of AB for her lifetime,” he said.

See also: Protecting looked after children – Ben Mansfield of 36 Bedford Row.