Rights of individuals to control of their own private information is a perennial issue in modern society, where there is ever more data being generated and accumulated. But as well as balancing rights of privacy, perhaps against interests such as freedom of speech or prevention of crime, sometimes the right on the other side of the balance is to ensure a fair trial and to protect others. This draws in Article 8, respect for private life, but also Article 6, right to a fair trial.

This balance had to be struck in the Supreme Court case of Re A.[1] This was a case of proceedings about the contact that a child (C) should have with her parents, especially her father (F). The issue arose because an unrelated third party (X), had made an allegation that she had been sexually abused by F. X did not want to take any further action on the allegation and wished it to be kept confidential. The local authority wanted to refer to the allegation in arguing that F should not have contact with C. F sought disclosure of details of the allegation made by X as he denied it.

The Supreme Court had to address the difficult of issue of balancing these rights: the rights of C and of each of her parents to a fair trial under Article 6; C, her mother and F’s various rights under Article 8 to a family life; but also X’s Article 8 rights to respect for her private life. X also argued that she had rights under Article 3 on the basis that disclosure of the allegations would cause her psychological harm.

The Court considered that the starting point was clear: X’s allegations should be disclosed so that they could be tested in evidence and considered. This would ensure that the child was protected from a risk of harm, if there was such a risk, or allowed contact with her father, if there was no such risk. This was true under the law generally and the same answer applied to the balance to be struck between Convention rights. Disclosure of X’s details would also not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment;  X would have the support and care of her doctors to help with the process; and X would not necessarily have to give evidence in person. The potential risk of harm to the child and the Article 6 and 8 rights of the child and her parents justified interfering with X’s Article 8 rights.