| SPOTLIGHT |
The Supreme Court is this week hearing an appeal over the discharge of reporting restriction orders (RROs) protecting the identity of medical professionals involved in the care of patients in respect of whom an application to withdraw treatment had been made.
The issue in Abbasi and another (Respondents) v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant) and Haastrup (Respondent) v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Appellant) was whether the Court of Appeal was right, in balancing the respective article 8 and article 10 rights, to discharge the relevant RRO.
Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, the respondents in the first appeal, are the parents of Zainab who was six years old when she died on 16 September 2019.
Lanre Haastrup and Takesha Thomas, the respondents in the second appeal, are the parents of Isaiah who died on 7 March 2018.
Zainab and Isaiah were in the care of the respective appellants. Indefinite RROs were made in both cases.
The Supreme Court said that in Zainab's case, they cannot name the small cohort of medical professionals protected by the RRO or give away information that would enable them to be identified (the "Abbasi RRO"). In Isaiah's case, the range of medical staff protected is wider (the "Haastrup RRO").
The parents appealed against the orders made by the President of the Family Division, which allowed the continuation of the RROs, on the basis that they now have the effect of preventing the parents meaningfully discussing or writing publicly about the circumstances in which their respective children were treated and died, or mainstream media from doing so if the parents were to spark interest in the circumstances of the cases.
The continuation of the RROs involved a balancing exercise between the competing article 8 rights (the right to privacy) of the hospital staff and the article 10 rights (the right to freedom of expression) of the parents, the Supreme Court noted.
In Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 the Court of Appeal discharged the RROs, with that order stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
The British Medical Association, The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Paediatric Critical Care Society, and The Free Speech Union Ltd have intervened.
A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales and Lord Stephens is hearing the appeal this week (15-16 April 2024). The livestream can be viewed here.
