In this week’s Digest, the High Court gave reasons for previously granting the continuation of an injunction preventing the disclosure of confidential information relating to the treatment of children at a school in South Croydon (Dodsworth)
London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB)
Judgment (available here) handed down by Lavender J in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) on 8 September 2017
The London Borough of Croydon’s schools include Red Gates School, in South Croydon, at which Mia Dodsworth, the first defendant, was headmistress from September 2016 until April 2017. On resigning, Ms Dodsworth was placed on “garden leave”. She, along with Devika Pauline Lambert, the second defendant – an educational advocate, providing consultancy services – had concerns about treatment of children at the School. Ms Lambert, in particular, was not satisfied with the London Borough of Croydon’s responses to such worries. In the summer of 2017, while still on garden leave, Ms Dodsworth accessed her work email account, forwarded various emails to her personal email address, and then forwarded them to Ms Lambert. These emails included documents containing confidential information about children and staff at the School. Ms Lambert duly spoke to the police about her concerns, sent information to Ofsted, and vowed to issue a press release. The London Borough of Croydon made an urgent application for an injunction, without notice, which was granted. The defendants were prohibited from using, publishing, communicating, or disclosing material described therein as “the Confidential Information”.
In September 2017, the High Court granted the continuation of the injunction. It heard that hearing in private, but now gives its reasons in public. Ms Lambert had drawn the Court’s attention to the Freedom of Information Act 2000; section 175 of the Education Act 2002; sections 43C and 43G of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; Articles 5 and 7 of the ECHR; and Articles 2, 3, 6, 12, 19, and 28 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Reliance was placed, also, on a letter from Newspaper Media Group, proprietor of the Croydon Guardian, referring to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the public interest in the question of whether the School was being properly run. The Court, however, was satisfied that publication should not be allowed. First, the Confidential Information had the necessary quality of confidence – it included, for instance, photographs of children. Second, it was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, on Ms Dodsworth’s part, to her employer. Third, unauthorised use or disclosure was threatened – and, while Ms Lambert had obtained signed consent forms from some parents, these did not extend to making the information about their children public. As with any school, the High Court held, there is a public interest in seeing that it is properly run, and that the local authority is properly carrying out its responsibilities. It would not be in the public interest, though, for the Confidential Information to be published by these defendants. If, however, those who are entitled to do so – i.e. parents of children at the School – were to disclose information, either to the authorities or more widely, that was a matter for them, the Court concluded.
Other News
CJEU dismisses complaints over EU asylum seeker quotas (6 September 2017)
EU judges should rule on UK surveillance powers, IPT rules (8 September 2017)
MP’s review reveals justice system’s bias against ethnic minorities (8 September 2017)
