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

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