Give us feedback

Tag: Anonymity

7 April 2021

Lifting reporting restrictions for young people post-conviction – when does the excepting direction apply?

In this case the Court of Appeal upheld a Crown Court judge's decision to make an excepting direction allowing the reporting of a child defendant's in relation to a murder conviction at the conclusion of the proceedings. The judgment shows the reluctance of the higher courts to interfere with a balancing exercise carried out by Crown Court Judges where the reasoning cannot be said to be wrong in law.

19 June 2018

Anonymity granted to protect a child in divorce proceedings

XW v XH [2018] EWFC 44 A well known businessman, whose products are used by millions globally, was petitioned for divorce by his wife.  Despite there being a public interest in the judgment, it was anonymised and redacted mainly to protect the privacy of the couple’s particularly vulnerable child, who would have been harmed by the […]

14 March 2018

Anonymity and the right to be forgotten by Google

NT1 and NT2 and Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB)  Two businessmen (NT1 and NT2) brought unrelated claims to the High Court about their rights to be forgotten by Google. Both claimants had spent convictions and, having had their requests for the removal of related search results by Google refused, they resorted to legal action. NT1’s […]

23 January 2018

Anonymity for child defendants who are the victims of trafficking

This case is the most recent in an increasingly long line of authorities considering the UK’s international obligations to victims of trafficking who are forced to commit crimes integral to their trafficked status. The obligations derive from the Council of European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005, and from the EU Directive 2011/36 on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, and are now reflected in the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

9 January 2017

What’s in a name? A High Court case on preserving the anonymity of child defendants

In 2009 parties A and B were convicted of offences which caused public outrage. The original case was known as the ‘Eddlington’ case. The case brought before Sir Geoffrey Vos in the High Court was an application for a permanent order restraining the press and all other persons from publishing A and Bs names or identities following their 18th birthdays. There are limited cases of this nature therefore the outcome and the clarification of points relating to human rights and public protection are important.