Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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