What happened in Charles Mutori & 6 Others v Standard Group & 4 Others?

There were numerous burning of schools in Kenya in 2012. On 5th November 2012, the Appellants who were minors at Mugoiri Girls School in Murang’a County were brought before a Magistrate Court at Murang’a to answer arson-related charges. The 1st to 4th Respondents, all media houses published and/or televised images of the students appearing before the court in print, online and visual media disclosing full identities and descriptions of the seven minors, the school and detailed accounts of their alleged participation in the attempted burning of the school.

Being aggrieved by the actions of the 1st - 4th Respondent, the minors through a next of friend petitioned the High Court claiming the manner in which the 1st - 4th Respondents published their details ignored the minor’s right to privacy and wasn’t in their best interest. That the Respondents acted with malicious intent, commercial consideration and profit among others with utter disregard for the dignity, privacy, and best interest of the manners as required by the Constitution and the law and that as a result of that behaviour, the minors were stigmatised, traumatized and even shunned by the society.

The Appellants sought for a declaration that the rights of the minors had been violated, damages, among other prayers.

The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that,

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

At the Court of Appeal, there were three issues to be determined;

In regard to the alleged violation of the minors’ rights, the Court of Appeal held that the public nature of hearing criminal cases is the general rule and that the principle of open justice requires that proceedings be held in open court where the press and members of the public have free access and the same principle permits publication of accurate reports of any proceedings. For this reason, the respondents had a right to be in court and to impartial information in the exercise of their rights in the Constitution. The Court acknowledged the fact that these rights were subject to limitations but rather held that the burden was on the appellants to prove that the limitation was justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The court resolved that the minors’ rights were neither violated by the court nor the respondent media houses.

The Court of Appeal also held that the right to privacy in proceedings involving children is not absolute and can be limited to the extent that the limitation is reasonable in an open and democratic society and that although the child’s best interest is the primary factor, it is not the sole consideration for all other actions affecting children. Therefore was no real substantial risk to limit the rights of the public and the media since issues before the criminal trial court were of public importance and interest. The court found that the High Court was right to hold that the publications were right to be made in the public interest.

In regard to the alleged damage caused, the court held that the appellants did not prove the alleged violations of the minors’ constitutional rights and consequential damage with their evidence relied on falling short of the required standard of proof and that whether the minors were tried in public or in private, the gravity of the charges alone, was sufficient to cause them distress, trauma, anguish and fear. Will all that the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed.

What has the Supreme Court decided?

The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and the issued for determination were;

The Supreme Court held that the Constitutional provision providing that “a child’s best interest are of paramount interest in all matters involving the child” isn’t just a principle but also a right and therefore all provisions for the rights of children must be interpreted to apply to all aspects of the law, civil or criminal which affect the child bearing in mind the principle of the best interest of a child.

In regard to children in conflict of the law facing charges, they are vulnerable due to their age and level of maturity which is the reason why special courts are put in place with sittings held in camera for their trial t which only the presiding judicial officer, officers of the court and a children’s officer are allowed to attend and this is intended to avoid exposing them to further avoidable intimidation, humiliation or distress.

In regard to the conflicting human rights, the court held that the Constitution allows limitation of some human rights including those in question under two circumstances;

The court held that much as the general rule is that criminal trials are public, there are certain established exceptions that require them to be held away from the public glare or for certain sensitive particulars to be redacted for instance proceedings involving children. In a free and democratic society, criminal trials may not be public to protect witnesses or vulnerable persons, among others. It is clear from the reading of the law that a child who is in conflict with the law is a vulnerable victim of the failure of a weak system in society.

The Supreme Court also held that journalists and media professionals are in the class of very few persons permitted to be present in proceedings concerning children however they are restricted on what they can disclose in their reports and publications. They cannot release particulars of the child, the name, image or any information that can easily lead to identification of the child. This is intended to protect the child from further harm even if he or she has to be processed through the criminal justice system.

Much as the public has a right to know what is happening, concern should placed on the manner of gathering and disseminating such information, due to children’s vulnerability on account of their age, their cases cannot be used as pawns to deter others from committing crimes, they ought to be guided, counselled and taught good behaviour and how to steer clear from acts that may bring them into conflict with the law.

Therefore, the courts below erred in raising the status of the public interest over the protection and the best interest of the children and their rights to privacy without subjecting a limitation. The intrusion upon the privacy of the children by publishing their particulars was demeaning not only to their dignity as individuals but also to the integrity of their parents and the wider society of which they are part. The names, images and videos of the appellants were not essential for purposes of public information.

What does this decision mean?

The Constitution of Uganda under Article 34(1) introduces the principle of the best interest of a child mostly known as ‘welfare of the child’ and different Ugandan cases have discussed this principle.

Summarily what this case introduces is that much as the press has a duty to provide information to the public, whenever it comes to covering criminal trials involving children they are required to be very careful. They may go ahead and publish information about the proceedings but for the sake of protecting the child who is vulnerable at the moment, they should not disclose the name and image of the child among any identifying other information.

Journalists among others, not only have a duty to keep the people across the country informed but also a duty to be part of the process of rehabilitating the children who have been victims of the weak system in society.

Download the article here
 
 

DISCLAIMER: This article is for general information only and it reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice. For any further information or advice relating to this article, please contact us.