Report comment

Plainly correct decision.

That said, the court's reasoning appeared to be that the applicants' article 8 rights were engaged, but that they were overridden by Article 10.

Fair enough, but I don't understand why article 8 is even engaged at all.

The fact that these individuals were convicted of murder is public knowledge. There was a trial. That trial was reported on. No-one suggests that such reporting breached privacy laws at the time.

So how can information, which has legitimately and lawfully become public, suddenly be rendered private again?