I hesitate to put my head over the parapet. It has been some years since I last sat in the Family Court, and even then it was at the most junior level. But I am struck by the absence of any reference to s.97 Children Act 1989, which protects the privacy of children involved in proceedings under the Act. That section applied to these proceedings (and was referred to by HHJ Hess). It’s true that the penalty for breach is only a fine, rather than imprisonment (as can be imposed for contempt of court), but it nonetheless deserves to be taken into account.
I am also struck by the way in which you have presented the case law, in particular Munby J’s comments in Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] 2 FLR 142. His point, as I understand it, was that s.12 did not of itself prohibit the publication of the matters (including the identity of the child) which you set out, but of course that is not the same thing as saying that such matters can in fact be reported (if only because of the effect of s.97).
In the absence of Andrew McFarlane, it might be interesting to hear the views of someone like Lucy Reed KC; have you considered inviting her to appear on the podcast?
I hesitate to put my head over the parapet. It has been some years since I last sat in the Family Court, and even then it was at the most junior level. But I am struck by the absence of any reference to s.97 Children Act 1989, which protects the privacy of children involved in proceedings under the Act. That section applied to these proceedings (and was referred to by HHJ Hess). It’s true that the penalty for breach is only a fine, rather than imprisonment (as can be imposed for contempt of court), but it nonetheless deserves to be taken into account.
I am also struck by the way in which you have presented the case law, in particular Munby J’s comments in Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] 2 FLR 142. His point, as I understand it, was that s.12 did not of itself prohibit the publication of the matters (including the identity of the child) which you set out, but of course that is not the same thing as saying that such matters can in fact be reported (if only because of the effect of s.97).
In the absence of Andrew McFarlane, it might be interesting to hear the views of someone like Lucy Reed KC; have you considered inviting her to appear on the podcast?