Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 21.1 MB]
Family Law
Human Rights, Civil Liberties & Public Law
Defamation and Reputation Management
Capacity & Court of Protection
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

  • FREE
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to examine the decision in Independent News and Media v A [2009] EWHC 2858 in light of the principle of open justice and the application of ECHR Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression). It will examine the presumption in favour of closed proceedings in the family courts and the justification for such measures. The podcast will address how the rules in favour of protecting the identity of litigants and the details of proceedings may have to give way to principles of open justice and media reporting to ensure the court's maintain the public's confidence.

After completing the course you will:
  • Understand the facts and issues in the case;
  • Understand the arguments made in favour of upholding the principle of 'open justice';
  • Be aware of the potential for this decision to upset long standing principles of proceedings held in camera, particularly in the family law context;
  • Understand the process which the court undertakes in balancing questions of privacy and freedom of speech;
  • Understand the differences between the reporting rules in the family courts and Court of Protection.
General Interest Difficulty: 2 of 5
Case Update
Legal Principles
Sources and References:
  • Independent News and Media and others v A [2009] EWHC 2858;
  • Independent News & Media Ltd and others v A [2010] EWCA Civ 343;
  • Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417;
  • European Convention of Human Rights Arts 8, 10;
  • Court of Protection Rules rr 90, 91, 92;
  • Mental Capacity Act 2005;
  • Human Rights Act 1998 s 12(4);
  • Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433;
  • Tarsasag a Szabadsagjogokert v Hungary ECHR (37374/05);
  • Re X [2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam).

This podcast looks at the Court of Protection's powers to hold proceedings affecting an incapacitated persons personal well-being and financial affairs in private i.e. without a media or public presence. The case focusses on a recent Court of Appeal decision on the applicability of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in such circumstances and the media's right of access in order to uphold the principles of 'open justice'.

The subject referred to in this podcast as 'A' can now be revealed to be Derek Paravicini, a musically gifted but otherwise severely disabled savant. The court restrictions identifying this applicant have now been lifted.

Podcast added: 27/05/10

Podcast last reviewed: 2011-11-30

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com