This was a powerful argument in favour of discharging the reporting restrictions orders.The judge referred to  EWHC 2694 (Fam) when the President noted that it is "not the role of the judge to seek to exercise any kind of editorial control over the manner in which the media reports information which it is entitled to publish." Therefore, the fact that sections of the press may report the matter sensationally or inappropriately was not a ground for maintaining a reporting restrictions order.
The orders sought were made final against each of the respondents.
Reporting restriction orders There was an issue as to whether the interim reporting restrictions should be varied or discharged.
Keehan J noted that Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR were engaged.
Injunctions The judge concluded that using the inherent jurisdiction to make injunctive orders to prevent child sexual exploitation was appropriate.
In respect of each man, the judge concluded they had been engaged in the sexual exploitation of AB.
Due to the draconian and wide ranging nature of reporting restriction orders, speculative evidence would not be sufficient or adequate to provide an evidential basis to justify such an order.