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

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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll