header-logo header-logo

28 January 2010 / Sarah Jane Boon , Tanya Roberts
Issue: 7402 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Privacy v publicity

Tanya Roberts & Sarah Jane Boon ask whether the media’s gain will be at the expense of the privacy of the individual?

The Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (rule 10.28) were amended last April such that the media now has the right to attend most family proceedings, subject to the discretion of the court to exclude them in specific circumstances. At present, the media are permitted to publish details of the family court process, but they are prohibited from publishing the details of an individual case.

However, Pt 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill now proposes to set out more generous rules as to what the media can publish, having attended family hearings. Stage 1 would come into effect immediately, but stage 2 could only be implemented at least 18 months later, following a review of stage 1 by the Lord Chancellor, the conclusions of which would be laid before Parliament.

Stage 1

Currently, the starting point is that information relating to family proceedings cannot be published. However, there are three exceptions:
l authorised publications of relevant court orders or judgments;
l authorised news

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll