The claimant child invited the court to protect his identity in these proceedings by the making of an order under section 39 of the 1933 Act.
Held: The court described the limitations inherent in such order in modern conditions where the Internet was a substantial force: ‘Whereas in 1933, and until recently, the only form in which a report of proceedings was likely to reach the public was by newspaper or broadcasting, today reports of proceedings can be made by any individual posting a report on the internet. And whereas reports in newspapers and broadcasts were ephemeral and difficult to find even a day or two after they had first been published, reports on the internet are easy to find with a search engine, and very difficult to remove.
Accordingly, it is submitted, the limitation of s.39 of the 1933 Act to newspaper reports may not only be insufficient, it is also anomalous, in failing to provide for forms of reports to the public that have become technically possible, and now common, in addition to newspapers and broadcasts.’ An order was made which avoided these limitations.
Judges:
Tugendhat J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 3279 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Children and Young Person’s Act 1933 39
Cited by:
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Children, Media
Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465902