Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd - The Case of Child Killers

Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2001] H.R.L.R. 19
Family Division 

8 January 2001

Brief Summary:
The two petitioners had been convicted of murdering a young boy when they were also children.  As the reached the age of majority, they sought to renew the injunctions preventing the media from releasing information relating to their identities.  They feared that if that information were released, the notoriety of their crime would cause them to be pursued by members of the public, which would interfere with their family lives and their safety.  The court ultimately found that the risk to the petitioners' rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the ECHR outweighed the media defendants' rights to expression under Article 10.  The injunctions were issued.

The Facts:
The two petitioners killed a two-year-old boy when they were 10 years old.  The facts and the circumstances of the murder were particularly shocking and distressing and were widely publicised in the media. They were convicted of the murder and detained as minors until they were 18 years old, at which time they were to be paroled.  At that time, they sought to continue an injunction against media groups from publishing information regarding their identities, appearances, and locations.

Human Rights Argument:
The claimants argued that the rights to life, the prohibition on torture, and the right to family and private life in Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention required that the injunctions remain in force.  They argued that there was clear evidence of a specific, preventable, serious and continued threat to their lives, and a real likelihood that the press intended to publish the information.  The defendants argued that Article 10's right to freedom of expression gave them the right to publish this information.  In response, the petitioners relied on the confidential information exception to free expression in Article 10 .

The Holding:

The court balanced the petitioners' Articles 2, 3 and 8 rights against the defendants Article 10 rights. Using evidence provided by the petitioners' families (of threats to themselves and pressure from the media for information) and excerpts from media coverage from the time of the murder trial, the court found that the risk to the petitioners' lives was substantial enough to issue the injunctions.  More specifically, the court found that the injunctions were (1) in accordance with the law, (2) necessary in a democratic society to satisfy a strong and pressing need, and (3) proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.  The court therefore granted injunctions to prevent the media in England and Wales from publishing information relating to the identity and whereabouts of the claimants, and (for 12 months) relating to the secure units in which they were held. This injunction included information that had entered the public domain via the internet and other media outside the court's jurisdiction.

Villains?
The two petitioners in this case committed a reprehensible crime against a child while they themselves were children.  Moreover, they sought to protect their own lives from members of the public bent on revenge.  Despite the sympathy I feel towards them because they were so young when their crime was committed, I will err on the side of villainy due to the horrific nature of their crime.  Villains.

Re Crawley Green Road Cemetery, Luton - The Case of the Re-buried Husband

Re Crawley Green Road Cemetery, Luton,
[2001] H.R.L.R. 21
Consistory Court of St Albans
2 December 2000

Brief Summary:
The petitioner sought to have her husband's body exhumed, cremated and re-buried in non-consecrated grounds, which would be more in keeping with the petitioner's (and her husband's) humanist beliefs.

The Facts:
The ashes of the petitioner's husband were buried in a consecrated position in Crawley Green Road Cemetery, Luton. The funeral ceremony had been humanist one because neither the deceased nor his wife had any Christian allegiance.  The petitioner had been unaware that the plot was consecrated. Following the funeral, the petitioner moved from Luton and was forced to travel in order to visit her husband's grave. The petition requested that the remains be reinterred at a location closer to her present home and in a manner compatible with her religious beliefs.

Human Rights Argument:
The petitioner argued that her husband was originally buried in a manner that she found at odds with the family's humanist beliefs.  Requiring him to remain there violated her Article 9 right to manifest her religion or beliefs.  The government argued that burying her husband's ashes in non-consecrated ground would offend the religious beliefs of Christians and those beliefs should be balanced against the petitioner's.

The Holding:
The petitioner has the right "to remove her husband's ashes from a place where their burial are, at least in her eyes, hypocritical and contrary to her humanist beliefs."  Humanist beliefs are entitled to the same Article 9 protection as more conventional religions.  Moreover, the fact that Christians might be upset by the burial in non-consecrated grounds does not outweigh her concerns.  The court ordered the body exhumed. 

Villain?
A humanist widow who wants her husband buried in a manner that reflected his beliefs and to be able to visit her husband's grave more easily?  No villain here.

Brabazon-Drenning v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting - The Case of the Bad Nurse

Brabazon-Drenning v United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting, [2000] All ER (D) 1620

Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)

31 October 2000

Brief Summary

A nurse and nursing home owner was charged with, among other things, failing to adequately staff her nursing home.  She was too depressed and anxious to attend her hearing and so the hearing proceeded without her.  She alleged, among other things, that Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) was violated because she was not given the opportunity to defend herself at the hearing and that the hearing should have been postponed until she was well enough to attend.  The court agreed that Article 6 had been breached.

The facts: 

The appellant was the owner of the Firs Nursing and Residential Home in Redruth, Cornwall. The home was a registered home for 18 nursing and 12 residential beds. The appellant was required to have a registered nurse on duty at all times, together with a number of care assistants.

On September 6, 1997, two registration officers from the area health authority inspected the premises. They found no registered staff on duty, and also that certain women had been administering medication in the absence of a registered nurse. After several complaints from registration officers regarding a shortage of staff were sent to the appellant in September and October 1997, the home was finally closed on October 17, 1997.

The disciplinary hearing was to take place on November 30, 1999. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee informed the appellant of the charges, the nature of the evidence against her, and recommended that she should seek representation.  Before the hearing could take place, letters were sent to the PCC from the appellant's mother and general practitioner that stated that appellant was suffering from mixed anxiety/depression related to the closure of the Firs Nursing Home, and that she would not be able to attend the hearing and that it should be rescheduled for a few months in the future.  An officer also spoke with the appellant who stated she was not mentally able to proceed at that time.  The PCC was aware of these communications and proceeded with the hearing in the appellant's absence.

The charges against the appellant were: 

(1) Permitting untrained staff to administer medication. 

(2) Permitting the practice of medication being potted up in advance of being administered. 

(3) Failing to ensure that there was a proper registered nurse covering for a morning shift when she was absent. 

(4) Being not contactable when she was the first level nurse on call. 

(5) Failing to ensure that the home had trained nurse cover

(6) Failing to be registered between September 1 and April 22, 1997. 

Appellant was found guilty of all six charges.

Human Rights Argument:

The appellant argued that the PPC should have adjourned the hearing so as to permit the appellant to be represented and to appear. The failure to do so involved a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Holding:

The court found that there were no overriding public interest considerations which should have deprived the appellant of a basic right to be present when the case was put against her, and to be in a position where she could either cross-examine herself, or have a representative with whom she could communicate cross-examine on her behalf. It was a breach both of the principles of natural justice and Article 6. 

Villain? 

This nurse and nursing home owner should have taken adequate steps to ensure that her nursing home was adequately staffed.  However, there were no allegations of abuse of her patients and she, overall, appears to be a very sympathetic party.  Definitely not a villain.