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
When two worlds collide: the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
Dr Onyója Momoh, Barrister, 5 Pump Court ChambersMost will agree that the relationship between the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions is a match made in heaven. However, the intersection between the 1970...
Familial relationships following a traditional surrogacy arrangement
Mary Welstead, Visiting Professor in Family law University of BuckinghamIn January 2024, Theis J declined to discharge a child arrangements order for contact between a surrogate mother and a...
Practical enforcement
James Snelus, No 5 ChambersA look at some of the problems that can be encountered when enforcing financial remedy orders.  The article is not a comprehensive overview. It briefly considers how to...
Cremation and the family: some burning issues
Andrew Bainham, Emeritus Reader in Family Law and Policy, University of CambridgeIn this article the author considers the law and practice surrounding modern cremation and the cremation aspects...
Changes to cost limits for Child Abduction and Wardship
Cost Update for Child Abduction and WardshipWhen reviewing current costs limitation for Child Abduction and Wardship it has been agreed following consultation and feedback that the cost limit for the...
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