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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

J is for Jurisdiction: Re J

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
The Art 10 right of parents to express opinions online via social media, and the right of the press to publish those opinions more widely will continue to be guarded jealously by the courts. In Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 26
Slug : j-is-for-jurisdiction-re-j
Meta Title : J is for Jurisdiction: Re J
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 11, 2013, 09:35 AM
Article ID : 104299

Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley, St Philips Chambers, Birmingham:

The Art 10 right of parents to express opinions online via social media, and the right of the press to publish those opinions more widely will continue to be guarded jealously by the courts.

In Re J (Reporting Restriction: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR (forthcoming and noted at [2013] Fam Law 1389) the President of the Family Division makes clear however that, even in the ever advancing age of social media, where the exercise of freedom of expression becomes a disproportionate interference in a child's rights under Art 8, reporting restriction orders remain available to protect the child's right to privacy and anonymity.

The case of Re J makes clear that the fact that the medium employed to disseminate opinions and information is a foreign based internet website does not prevent the use of such orders and sets out the procedural requirements for obtaining injunctions against foreign based internet providers.

In J is for jurisdiction Alistair MacDonald QC and Julie Moseley (leading and junior counsel for the local authority in Re J) explain the decision in Re J and the procedural requirements that flow from it.

The full version of this article appears in the December 2013 issue of Family Law.   

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