Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'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 articlesrss feeds
Parents with learning disabilities: the concept of ‘substituted parenting’ and its use in the family court context
Beth Tarleton, Senior Lecturer, University of BristolNadine Tilbury, Policy Officer for the Working Together with Parents Network (wtpn.co.uk) Over recent years, the term ‘substituted...
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, Consultant/Mediator, Anthony Gold SolicitorsA Rebooted Part 3 in force on 29 April 2024 The Part 3 rules have been reworked to make sure non-court dispute resolution ('NCDR') options...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: record numbers arriving once again in Kent
The Children’s Commissioner has written a blog called "Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: record numbers arriving once again in Kent".She says: "My unique responsibility as Children’s...
Tips on the efficient use of accountancy experts in family financial proceedings
Roger Isaacs, Milsted Langdon AccountantsIn this article, Roger Isaacs, an experienced forensic accountant and mediator, shares tips on the efficient use of accountancy experts in Family Financial...
View all articles
Authors

J is for Jurisdiction: Re J

Sep 29, 2018, 18:55 PM
Title : J is for Jurisdiction: Re J
Slug : j-is-for-jurisdiction-re-j
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : 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
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from