Article 2 (right to life) of the ECHR was relied upon; however, the judge concluded that the existence or extent of any risk of harm to the respondents is unknown.
He was not satisfied that there was evidence of a risk to the respondents' lives and therefore their Article 2 rights were not engaged.
Alternatively, there was no credible evidence of a risk to life and little weight should be put on this when balancing the competing Convention rights.
When balancing the Article 8 and Article 10 rights, the balance came fell clearly and decisively in favour of the Article 10 rights of the press and broadcast media.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them and the respondents identified by name in the judgment may be identified by his or her true name or actual location and that in particular the anonymity of the young person and the members of her family must be strictly preserved. In this matter I am concerned with a vulnerable young person, AB, who is 17 years old.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 Press Association was in favour of the reporting restrictions being lifted so the men could be named; however, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police was opposed to identification of the men in the media on the basis of a risk of reprisal attacks.In respect of each man, the judge concluded they had been engaged in the sexual exploitation of AB.In respect of the injunctions, in  EWHC 2694 (Fam) the President observed that the courts will not make orders that cannot be enforced.