Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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