*/
Family
In the October news (p 8) the case of Re J (A Child) was reported incorrectly. On 5 September the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, gave judgment in open court on an application by Staffordshire County Council for an injunction prohibiting publication including on the internet which would identify a child who was subject to care proceedings after his father posted material on Facebook including a film of the execution by social services of the emergency protection order.
In the course of his judgment, Sir James stated that: “There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system.” “We must have the humility to recognise – and to acknowledge – that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice.” Speaking generally, the “publicist” “may be an unprincipled charlatan seeking to manipulate public opinion by feeding it tendentious accounts of the proceedings. But freedom of speech is not something to be awarded to those who are thought deserving and denied to those who are thought undeserving”. Having considered the circumstances of the case before him, he concluded that the only justification for an injunction is if restraint is necessary to protect the child’s Article 8 rights and in particular his privacy and anonymity. Unless that basis is made out it cannot be granted “because of the manner or style in which the material is being presented on the internet, nor to spare the blushes of those being attacked, however abusive and justified those attacks may be”. Since the child was only five months old on the day of the judgment, Sir James was able to draw a “crucial difference” between restraining publication of his name and restraining publication of visual images of him. Without the name or other identifying details, it would be difficult if not impossible to locate anonymous postings on the internet. There were powerful arguments for asserting that the publication on the internet of the film without naming the child but “commenting on the operation of the care system and conveying a no doubt powerful and disturbing message should not be prevented merely because it includes images of the baby”. He struck the balance by restraining contra mundum the naming of the child and his parents but not restraining publication of his image. That would allow public debate to continue without the public knowing “who the anonymous child is whose image is on view”.
In the course of his judgment, Sir James stated that: “There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system.” “We must have the humility to recognise – and to acknowledge – that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice.” Speaking generally, the “publicist” “may be an unprincipled charlatan seeking to manipulate public opinion by feeding it tendentious accounts of the proceedings. But freedom of speech is not something to be awarded to those who are thought deserving and denied to those who are thought undeserving”. Having considered the circumstances of the case before him, he concluded that the only justification for an injunction is if restraint is necessary to protect the child’s Article 8 rights and in particular his privacy and anonymity. Unless that basis is made out it cannot be granted “because of the manner or style in which the material is being presented on the internet, nor to spare the blushes of those being attacked, however abusive and justified those attacks may be”. Since the child was only five months old on the day of the judgment, Sir James was able to draw a “crucial difference” between restraining publication of his name and restraining publication of visual images of him. Without the name or other identifying details, it would be difficult if not impossible to locate anonymous postings on the internet. There were powerful arguments for asserting that the publication on the internet of the film without naming the child but “commenting on the operation of the care system and conveying a no doubt powerful and disturbing message should not be prevented merely because it includes images of the baby”. He struck the balance by restraining contra mundum the naming of the child and his parents but not restraining publication of his image. That would allow public debate to continue without the public knowing “who the anonymous child is whose image is on view”.
Family
In the October news (p 8) the case of Re J (A Child) was reported incorrectly. On 5 September the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, gave judgment in open court on an application by Staffordshire County Council for an injunction prohibiting publication including on the internet which would identify a child who was subject to care proceedings after his father posted material on Facebook including a film of the execution by social services of the emergency protection order.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC identify good value bottles across the price spectrum – from festive fizz to reliable reds
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
