*/
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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
In an era of patient-centred care and growing concern over misconduct in medical settings, why do women still lack the right to choose women consultants for examination and treatment? Charles Davey investigates
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC
