Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
View all articles
Authors

A Local Authority v W: children's privacy and press freedom in criminal cases

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
This commentary considers the decision of the House of Lords in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2005] 1 FLR 591.
Slug : a-local-authority-v-w-children-s-privacy-and-press-freedom-in-criminal-cases
Meta Title : A Local Authority v W: children's privacy and press freedom in criminal cases
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 2, 2006, 06:03 AM
Article ID : 88707

Rachel Taylor, Tutor and Penningtons Student in Law, Christ Church, Oxford. This commentary considers the decision of the House of Lords in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2005] 1 FLR 591. The decision is important both for its approach to children's privacy and press freedom and in its wider implications for the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to conflicting rights in horizontal cases. While the parallel analysis adopted by the House of Lords is welcomed, this commentary raises concerns that its application in Re S fails to give sufficient consideration to the specific rights claimed. It is argued that the President's approach to similar issues in A Local Authority v W, L, W, T and R [2005] EWHC 1564 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 1 is more sensitive to the factual context and better reflects the reasoning behind the parallel analysis. See Child and Family Law Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, 2006 for the full article.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from