In re C (A Child): CA 29 Jul 2016

Publication of care hearings

The court was asked whether a judgment in earlier care proceedings held in private should now be made public. The father had since been convicted of the murder of C. Reporting restrictions were imposed pending his trial, and immediately after the trial order had been continued to protect his right to a fair trial. He had said that he intended to appeal. The media organisations now appealed against the latter order.
Held: The redacted judgment should be published.
Lord Dyson MR said that in terms of jurors remembering publicity about a trial or the people involved in it, the ‘staying power of news reports is very limited’.

Lord Dyson MR, McFarlane, Burnett LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 798, B4/2016/2680, [2016] Fam Law 1223, [2017] 2 FLR 105, [2016] 1 WLR 5204, [2016] WLR(D) 448
Bailii, Judiciary, WLTD
England and Wales
Judgment now publishedLondon Borough of Sutton v Gray and Butler FD 30-Jun-2016
(Redacted) The Borough sought a care order.
Held: The father was respnsible for the death of the sister, and the surviving child was in need of the kind of care which would not lead to her following her mother’s path. . .

Cited by:
CitedSarker, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2018
The defendant was to face trial under the 2006 Act. He applied for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the reporting of the proceedings on the grounds that knowledge by the jury of the inquiry and police investigation would be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567802