Applications were made for the protection of the identity of children and family members ahead of care and criminal proceedings. The order was resisted by several news organisations.
Held: a conclusion that the Art 8 rights of individuals should prevail over the Art 10 rights of the public so as to restrict the reporting of criminal proceedings will be highly exceptional, although not one that is beyond the contemplation of the courts.
Peter Jackson J
[2012] EWHC 2038 (Fam)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – A Council v M and Others (Judgment 1: Fact-Finding) FD 8-Mar-2012
Application for care order in respect of four children. . .
See Also – A Council v M and Others (Judgment 2: Welfare) FD 17-Jul-2012
. .
Cited by:
Cited – H v A (No2) FD 17-Sep-2015
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.
Held: The judgment case should be published in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Litigation Practice, Human Rights
Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.509155
