‘The BBC said a High Court ruling will allow it to broadcast a programme about a man it is claimed exploited his status as an MI5 informant.’
The Independent, 18th May 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The BBC has been banned from identifying a “dangerous extremist and misogynist” who is allegedly an MI5 informant, after a high court judge granted an injunction.’
The Guardian, 7th April 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A woman who was gang-raped by men claiming to be Welsh rugby players has sued the police for naming her online.’
BBC News, 7th April 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP, has won the right to protect his sources in a historic freedom of the press case at the Old Bailey.’
The Guardian, 22nd March 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In the politically-charged and at times feverish aftermath of the Brexit referendum, Gina Miller became a “magnet for hatred” for exercising her right of access to courts and winning two landmark public law cases against the UK Government. The magnitude and ferocity of abuse directed at Gina Miller made those who followed in her footsteps wary enough to seek anonymity. In Yalland and others v Brexit Secretary, 4 claimants were granted anonymity in relation to a judicial review claim concerning UK participation in the European Economic Area Agreement.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th March 2022
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This was the issue in the landmark human rights case, Re S [2004] UKHL 47, in which Lord Steyn formulated the test in balancing privacy interests under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with freedom of expression interests under Article 10. Lord Steyn’s formula is relied on (or should be) every time the media argue that it’s in the public interest to breach someone’s Article 8 rights. Likewise, every time an individual argues their privacy rights outweigh freedom of expression, we go to Re S.’
Transparency Project, 8th March 2022
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘A member of United Sex Workers (USW), the union for sex workers, has been granted anonymity in her case against SumUp, a major card-payment machines provider. This is a significant win in a landmark case challenging financial discrimination against sex workers.’
Each Other, 4th February 2022
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Greater transparency is necessary for the public to have confidence in the family justice system but balancing openness with confidentiality will be “really difficult”, the president of the Family Division told MPs today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th January 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A former Conservative minister has been found to have raped and physically abused his wife by a family court judge who considered evidence at a private trial.’
The Independent, 10th December 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘On 29 October 2021 the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, published a report with his conclusions on the issue of transparency in the family courts. His view is clear: it is possible to enhance public confidence in the family courts whilst also safeguarding the privacy of the families and the children who turn to the courts for protection and resolution. Increased transparency in the family courts is plainly a top priority for the President; it should be the “new norm”.’
Family Law, 26th November 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘On 24 November 2021, approximately 3 years after the publication of detailed anonymisation guidance warning against the publication of overly graphic sexual content in judgments, and almost a month after publication of the Transparency Review, which echoes the same issue and indicates the need for an Anonymisation Unit – a family court judge has published a judgment which is, basically, pornographic in content.’
Transparency Project, 24th November 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘Hard on the heels of the CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSAL FOR A STANDARD REPORTING PERMISSION ORDER IN FINANCIAL REMEDY PROCEEDINGS published by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess, the FRC Lead Judges, and animated by the same acknowledgement of the need for more transparency in FRC, come two important judgments by Mostyn J on the same subject: BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87, paras 100-114, and, in quick succession, A v M [2021] EWFC 89, paras 101-106.’
Transparency Project, 16th November 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The issue of how the protection of privacy rights should be balanced as against the fundamental public interest in achieving transparency and open justice within the family justice system has long vexed the family division of the High Court. On the one hand, ensuring the confidentiality of family law proceedings is crucial both in terms of protecting the fundamental privacy rights of those individuals who find themselves caught up in such proceedings and in terms of maximising their engagement in the process. On the other hand, a lack of meaningful transparency around the work of the family courts undermines public trust in the family justice system, increases the risk of miscarriages of justice and inhibits the public’s ability to press for reforms of the system on a properly informed basis. The family courts have for a number of years recognised that this balance was weighted too strongly in favour of preserving the confidentiality of family court proceedings, but that still left the fantastically difficult question of how the system should be reformed so as to increase the level of transparency. These are issues that were considered most recently by the courts in the case of Newman v Southampton City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 437. In that case, a journalist who had been unable to attend the first instance hearings of a particular high profile adoption case, was seeking access to the documents which had been placed before the first instance court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had been right to conclude that the balance of interests tipped in favour of preserving the confidentiality of the majority of relevant documents. However, it also observed that the case served to ‘underline the need for the Transparency Review’ (paragraph 92).’
Panopticon, 2nd November 2021
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Openness in the family justice system should be regarded as “the new norm”, the president of the Family Division said yesterday, proposing that the media should be allowed to report court hearings more fully.’
Law Society's Gazette, 29th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Occasionally, a claimant at the employment tribunal will contact the Gazette in distress, after seeing reports of their case apparently plastered all over the internet. Many seem unaware of – and certainly unprepared for – the implications of open justice in the digital age.’
Law Society's Gazette, 25th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A police chief has admitted a decision by a misconduct panel to grant lifelong anonymity to a male officer who harassed a female domestic abuse victim opened the service up to accusations of a lack of transparency.’
The Guardian, 20th October 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Following an outpouring of sadness after the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess, his colleagues from across the Commons have been raising concerns for their own safety.’
BBC News, 20th October 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A woman raped by an Elvis impersonator when she was a 15-year-old dancer has said “he no longer controls her life” after he was finally put behind bars.’
BBC News, 7th July 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The focus of this judgment was on the jurisdiction, if any, that the High Court Family Division has to maintain a Reporting Restriction Order (‘RRO’) prohibiting the naming of any medical clinicians as being involved in the care and treatment of a child who had been the subject of “end of life” proceedings before the High Court prior to their death, and where an RRO had been made at that time preventing the identification of any of the treating clinicians and staff until further order.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th July 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024