The court gave its reasons for making an order preventing identification of a child claimant in professional negligence proceedings.
Held: By virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court, as a public authority, must take account of these competing principles where they become engaged, as in the case of the application of section 39. The rights under Articles 8 and 10 are qualified, and neither the best interests of the child nor the principle of open justice necessarily dictate the conclusion in any particular case, so that in many, if not most, instances a balance has to be struck between a number of weighty claims.
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 454 (QB), [2011] EMLR 18
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10, Children and Young Persons Act 1933 39
Cited by:
Cited – A, Regina (on The Application of) v Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court Admn 26-Mar-2013
A had pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk in a public place, while having the charge of a child under the age of 7 years, contrary to section 2(1) of the Licensing Act 1902. The child in question was A’s daughter, to whom I shall refer as B. B . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Human Rights
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430319
