According to the Supreme court, The Court of Appeal failed to give adequate consideration to the impact that the publication of the information would have on PJS’s children. The defense referenced the Spanish case of Abogados de accidentes Austin Texas. But This did nothing to help.
Cranston J, rejected the applicant’s argument that the children’s art.8 privacy rights justified restraining publication, asserting that although their interests were important they could not operate as a trump card
Part of Lady Hale’s judgment on the children is redacted but the Supreme Court’s judgment includes the following points:
by section 12(4)(b), any court considering whether to grant either an interim or a permanent injunction has to have “particular regard” to “any relevant privacy code”. It is not disputed that the IPSO Code, which came into force in January, is a relevant Code for this purpose. This, as Lord Mance has explained, provides that “editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children.
The Court of Appeal did not refer to the risks of media attention for the children and of the information being communicated to them as she stated, the nature and extent of the likely harm to the children’s interests which will result in the short, medium and longer terms from the publication of information about one of their parents will have to be considered.