BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> C (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 798 (29 July 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/798.html Cite as: [2016] WLR 5204, [2016] WLR(D) 448, [2016] 1 WLR 5204, [2016] Fam Law 1223, [2017] 2 FLR 105, [2016] EWCA Civ 798 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2016] 1 WLR 5204] [View ICLR summary: [2016] WLR(D) 448] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
MRS JUSTICE PAUFFLEY
FD12C00060
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE
and
LORD JUSTICE BURNETT
____________________
C (A Child) |
____________________
Jacob Dean (instructed by London Borough of Sutton) for the First Respondent
Hearing date: 22/07/2016
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Master of the Rolls:
Introduction
The relevant law and legal principles
"The Court of Appeal made clear in Re C (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 500 at [23] that the decision whether or not to publish the judgment constitutes a case management decision. In my judgment it is open to the court to remove the judgment from the public domain or otherwise make orders restricting its use in light of new evidence or changed circumstances as part of the courts' case management powers regarding disclosure and the wide powers under FPR 2010 r 4.1(3)(o) to further the overriding objective of ensuring the case is dealt with justly."
The exercise of the power
"the starting point is that permission should be given for the judgment to be published unless there are compelling reasons why the judgment should not be published."
The judge's approach
"There is the potential for prejudice to, even the derailing of, the criminal process. That, to my mind, is manifest. The risk may be, as Mr Bunting suggests, small but the consequences for the criminal process could be incalculable."
"The arguments in favour of the release of King J's judgment are powerful and strong. They will remain so. I fully expect that so soon as the criminal appeals' process is at and end a full, suitably redacted version of the 30th June 2014 Judgment will be published."
Discussion
"If Mr Butler is successful in his appeal against conviction and a retrial is ordered, the prejudice caused by disclosure of the extensive ruling of Mrs Justice Eleanor King cannot be overcome and Mr Butler will be deprived of a fair trial."
Conclusion
Lord Justice McFarlane:
Lord Justice Burnett: