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
Blackburne House receives £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs Giving Back campaign
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Leading drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs, has made a £500 donation to Blackburne House in Liverpool as part of its Giving Back campaign. For every testing...
Over 100 expert violence against women and girls organisations issue letter of solidarity with Jess Phillips MP following misogynistic and far right attacks
Women’s Aid, alongside 100 expert violence against women and girls (VAWG) organisations, have issued a letter of solidarity to Jess Phillips MP following an onslaught of misogynistic and far right...
The changes needed in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, according to Children's Commissioner
The Children's Commissioner has reacted to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: "As Children’s Commissioner, I want England to be the best place for children to grow up, where every child...
Is a balanced holistic evaluation really that difficult?
Stephen Williams, St Mary’s Family LawIt is easy to lose count of the number of Court of Appeal decisions that emphasise the importance of both judges and social work professionals undertaking a...
Disability as a section 25 factor
Naomh Gallagher, St John’s BuildingsDespite disability being a Section 25 factor in its own right, there is a dearth of resources specifically addressing the same. Often rolled into earning capacity,...
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