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
Book your table for the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025
The LexisNexis Legal Awards 2025 shortlist has been released, celebrating the exceptional talent and achievements within the entire legal community. This prestigious event will once again bring...
AlphaBiolabs: The UK’s No.1 DNA testing laboratory for legal matters
***SPONSORED CONTENT***Casey Randall, Head of Genetics at AlphaBiolabs, explores what makes AlphaBiolabs the industry leader for court-admissible DNA testing. DNA testing plays a critical role in the...
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Children’s Commissioner’s Written Evidence
The Children’s Commissioner has submitted written evidence to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee.This evidence builds on oral evidence provided by the Children’s Commissioner on 21...
Kinship carers call for government to provide a financial allowance
Over 30 kinship carers have marched and chanted their way through Westminster to the Treasury to call on the Chancellor Rachel Reeves to provide a financial allowance for all kinship...
Are claims made under Sch 1 of the Children Act 1989 just for the ultra-rich?
Sally Harrison KC, St John’s BuildingsSally Harrison KC considers whether Schedule 1 claims are only for the ultra rich. In this article she addresses the hurdles which potential applicants have to...
View all articles
Authors

J is for Jurisdiction: Re J

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Title : J is for Jurisdiction: Re J
Slug : j-is-for-jurisdiction-re-j
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Dec 11, 2013, 09:35 AM
Article ID : 104299

Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley, St Philips Chambers, Birmingham:

The Art 10 right of parents to express opinions online via social media, and the right of the press to publish those opinions more widely will continue to be guarded jealously by the courts.

In Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR (forthcoming and noted at [2013] Fam Law 1389) the President of the Family Division makes clear however that, even in the ever advancing age of social media, where the exercise of freedom of expression becomes a disproportionate interference in a child's rights under Art 8, reporting restriction orders remain available to protect the child's right to privacy and anonymity.

The case of Re J makes clear that the fact that the medium employed to disseminate opinions and information is a foreign based internet website does not prevent the use of such orders and sets out the procedural requirements for obtaining injunctions against foreign based internet providers.

In J is for jurisdiction Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley (leading and junior counsel for the local authority in Re J) explain the decision in Re J and the procedural requirements that flow from it.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2013 issue of Family Law.   

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from