The Council sought a lifelong order to protect the identity of a girl about to achieve majority, who have been subject to sexual exploitation as a child.
Held: Keehan J said: ‘There comes a point, however, where evidence is not merely speculative but is pure speculation, even from experienced professionals, with no sound or cogent underlying evidential basis. Given the Draconian and wide ranging nature of RROs, I am of the view that evidence of this nature will not be sufficient or adequate to provide an evidential basis to justify the making of an order.’
Keehan J
[2015] EWHC 1857 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales
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The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.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, Children
Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.550344