Opening up the Family Courts in the Name of Public Interest, but at What Cost?
| Author | Zach Leggett |
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/1740-5580-78.3.202 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
The Journal of Criminal Law
202
Opening Up the Family Courts in the Name of
Public Interest, But At What Cost?
Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)
Keywords Child welfare; Contra mundum; Publishing child images;
Transparency; Family courts; Public scrutiny
The father in this case had four children: L, C, W and J. L, C and W had
previously been taken in to care by Staffordshire County Council under
child protection orders and placed with new families. This case involved
the parents’ fourth child, J, who was born in April 2013 at home against
medical advice.
The father of J had a history of posting information regarding his other
children on social media sites. In February 2012 he posted images of L and
C on Facebook with comments valuing both children as being worth
£200,000 each to Social Services. In April 2012 the father posted an image
of W with the comment ‘snatched from the delivery suite by Staffordshire
County Council’. The father also posted an image of the social worker
describing her as a vampire-ish creature lurking in the corner, about to
steal the child from the loving parents and that she was ‘a wicked, wicked
woman’ who ‘will suffer for this’.
On the day of J’s birth, the father posted comments on Facebook stating
‘SS banging on the door we’re not answering’ and ‘SS gone to get EPO’.
The father then secretly filmed social services removing the baby from the
parents’ care, and the video was broadcasted online by UK Column Live
on 5 April 2013. UK Column Live also posted the video on YouTube. The
video was subsequently shown on numerous other websites. On 12 April
2013, UK Column Live broadcasted an interview with J’s father in which
both parents, W and J were all identified by name. This video was
subsequently withdrawn at the father’s request.
Staffordshire County Council sought a contra mundum injunction to
prevent the publication of any material which could disclose J’s identity,
including images or any information relating to: the newly born child, the
parents, the carers, the county council and any other employees involved
in the child protection process. Under s. 97(2) of the Children Act 1989, it
is a criminal offence for a person to publish to the public any material
which is intended, or likely, to identify a child involved in proceedings
under either the Act or under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, or to
publish the details of the child’s address or the address of the child’s school.
It is a defence if the accused can show he did not know, and had no reason
to suspect, that the published material would be likely to identify the
child. Under s. 97(4), the court possesses the power to dispense with the
requirements of s. 97(2) if the child’s welfare requires it. A breach of s. 97
is triable summarily and punishable by a fine not exceeding level 4. Breach
of a contra mundum order is punishable as a contempt of court.
Held, granting tHe application, a contra mundum injunction was
justified, but in an amended form. The order should allow the publication
To continue reading
Request your trial