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
AlphaBiolabs: Bridging the gap – when a hair drug test is not enough
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters.Drug testing plays a crucial role...
Film by Refuge, ‘Make the World a Refuge’ wins Film of the Year
‘Make the world a Refuge’, a powerful short film exploring the diverse forms of domestic abuse, has been awarded Charity Film of the Year 2025 at the Smiley Charity Film...
No longer ‘contact at all costs’: a new approach from Cafcass? Implications for private law cases
Tom Doyle, Park Square BarristersMost family lawyers will undoubtedly now be aware of the new domestic abuse practice policy published by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service...
‘Do they have to know about that?’ Human rights considerations and disclosure
Simon Johnson, Pump Court ChambersThis article examines the difficult and often emotive issue of disclosure of highly personal information about one party to other parties within public law...
Good practice: creating an accessible system for people with physical limitations: Part 1
Reagan Persaud, Spire BarristersFamily law is an arena for everyone. Every kind of person has the potential to frequent these courts hoping for justice. It is therefore common place for users who have...
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