References: [2006] 2 FLR 998, [2006] EWCC 1 (Fam)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Munby J
Barnet County Court – Munby J considered the publication of children proceedings: ‘ In my view the public generally, and not just the professional readers of law reports or similar publications, have a legitimate – indeed a compelling – interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their care jurisdiction. Moreover, if leave is confined in practice to those cases which are, for some reason, thought to be worthy of reporting in a law report, the sample of cases which will ever come to public attention is not merely very small but also very unrepresentative.
My own view, and I make no bones about this, is that, subject of course to appropriate anonymisation, the presumption ought to be that leave should be given to publish any judgment in any care case, irrespective of whether the judgment has any particular interest for law reporters, lawyers or other professionals. It should not be necessary to show that there is some particular reason to justify why leave should be given in the particular case, let alone any need to justify leave on the basis that the judgment deals with some supposedly interesting point of law, practice or principle. For my own part, I should have thought that the proper approach ought to be the other way round. It is not so much for those who seek leave to publish an anonymised judgment to justify their request; surely it is for those who resist such leave to demonstrate some good reason why the judgment should not be published even in a suitably anonymised form.’
This case cites:
- Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL (House of Lords, [2004] UKHL 47, Bailii, Times 29-Oct-04, [2005] 1 FLR 591, [2005] 1 AC 593, 17 BHRC 646, [2004] 4 All ER 683, [2005] Crim LR 310, [2004] 3 FCR 407, [2005] HRLR 5, [2004] 3 WLR 1129, [2005] EMLR 11, [2005] UKHRR 129, [2005] EMLR 2)
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – H -v- A (No2) FD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2630 (Fam))
The court had previously published and then withdrawn its judgment after third parties had been able to identify those involved by pulling together media and internet reports with the judgment.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 court identified: ‘ the risk of so . .
Last Update: 29-Sep-15 Ref: 552788