Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
Beatson Cancer Charity receives £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs Giving Back campaign
*SPONSORED CONTENT*Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs, has made a £500 donation to Beatson Cancer Charity in Glasgow as part of its Giving Back campaign. For every testing...
How law reform could help reduce domestic abuse for cohabitants
Graeme Fraser, William Sturges LLPIn this article, I consider how law reform for cohabitants could reduce the prospect of domestic abuse for those experiencing separation. My article endorses and...
Complexities that can arise in relocation cases: immigration and problematic ISW input
Cordelia Williams, Barrister, Pump Court ChambersThis article helps to inform child relocation cases where immigration is a key feature. It includes a list of suggested immigration questions to...
Child sexual abuse and Family Court proceedings
Lucy Hayton Right to EqualityAllison Quinlan Right to EqualityDr Adrienne Barnett Brunel University London; Right to EqualityDr Charlotte Proudman Senior Research Associate, University of...
Scott Schedules and best evidence: fact finding hearings
Briony Palmer, 3DJBAmy Stout, 3DJBBriony Palmer and Amy Stout provide a practical guide to fact finding in private law, reflecting the enduring popularity of this topic in light of the prevalence of...
View all articles
Authors

Case review: Re A and B (children)

Jan 11, 2019, 08:02 AM
Title : Case review: Re A and B (children)
Slug :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : Yes
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Jan 11, 2019, 08:00 AM
Article ID :

The balance came down clearly and decisively against granting the applicant journalist permission to publish information about care proceedings brought by the respondent local authority in relation to two children.

The Family Division also held that an injunction sought by the local authority preventing the journalist publishing or broadcasting any details of the children or the proceedings was not necessary to prevent what s 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prohibited.

Background

The respondent local authority brought care proceedings in relation to two children. The applicant journalist (SG) applied for permission to report the proceedings. However, his application was refused and he was ordered to return to the authority all court documents and any copies of those documents which he retained. The order further informed him that he should remove from the internet within 24 hours, a particular article he had written referred to in the order. SG did not comply with the order and, in fact, put up more material about the case on the internet.

In response, the local authority sought an injunction that, among other things, prohibited further publication by SG of details relating to the proceedings and the removal of the information on the internet. The judge gave effect to the local authority's application.

SG then applied for various orders, including that permitting publication of a series of articles about the child protection care proceedings process. The authority cross-applied for an injunction to prevent SG from publishing or broadcasting any details of the children or the proceedings to last until the children's respective 18th birthdays.

Want to access the rest of this story? To read the balance of this article click here (subscription required). This news analysis was first published by LexisPSL Family. To request a free one week trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
  • News
Tags :
child_mother_hands
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from