Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

CARE/PUBLICITY: Re Webster; Norfolk County Council v Webster, BBC, Associated Newspapers Ltd and Archant Group [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : re-webster-norfolk-county-council-v-webster-bbc-associated-newspapers-ltd-and-archant-group-2006-ewhc-2733-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 7, 2006, 11:17 AM
Article ID : 86675

(Family Division; Munby J; 2 November 2006)

The couple's three children had been taken into care and adopted, on the basis of, inter alia, allegations of physical abuse which the parents continued to deny. When the mother became pregnant with the fourth child, the parents moved to Ireland in an effort to evade further care proceedings, and publicised their story, arousing considerable media interest. On the parents' return, the local authority instituted care proceedings in respect of the fourth child. Severe reporting restrictions had been imposed. The media sought to lift those restrictions, and also sought permission to attend and to report on the care proceedings.

Having weighed the competing interests of open justice and confidentiality in children proceedings, the court considered that the reporting restrictions had been too wide and further that the media ought to be given access to the care proceedings in question. Four factors in particular were significant: the claim that the case involved a miscarriage of justice; the parents' own wish for publicity; the very extensive publicity there had already been; and the need for the full facts and the 'truth' to emerge in a way which would command public confidence. It was not clear what additional risks the child was likely to run if exposed to further publicity, given that the child's first name and his photograph were already in the public domain, and that many were already aware of the true identity of the parents. There was no disproportionate interference with the child's rights in permitting him and his parents to be identified by their real surname, while any greater degree of restraint would involve a disproportionate interference with the rights of the parents. The trial judge would retain the ultimate right to control access by the media to any hearing and it might be that there would be some particular part of the hearing during which it would be right to exclude them, perhaps, for example, while a particular witness was giving evidence. There might also be questions which could only be resolved at the hearing as to whether some category of witnesses, or a particular witness, should be entitled to anonymity.

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