Very interesting private law case where Truth seemingly triumphs.
What about a public law claim under Wilkinson v Downton, for an innocent parent’s right to tell their story – unanonymised – about the draconian false consensus of the local authority, CAFCASS and, possibly even judge at court of first instance – all are emanations of the state – where the judgement rubber-stamps falsely blaming an innocent birth parent for harming a child subsequently removed non-consensually for adoption, or, long-term foster care under a final care order? And, of course, the remedy, ie, to reunify?
The Supreme Court have given their decision in James Rhodes v OPO 2015
Click to access uksc-2014-0251-judgment.pdf
This was a case in which James Rhodes, a concert pianist, author, and film-maker, wrote an autobiographical account of his life, and where the mother of their child sought an injunction to prevent its publication. The Court of Appeal granted that injunction, based on an 1897 case called Wilkinson v Downton. That case established a cause of action which was “intentionally causing physical or psychological harm”
Mr Rhodes took that case to the Supreme Court, and triumphed.
The Supreme Court posed the central question in this way:-
What, then, is the proper scope of the tort in the modern law? In particular, can it ever be used to prevent a person from publishing true information about himself?
When you read snippets from the book contained in the judgment, those snippets pull no punches…
View original post 2,595 more words
| truthaholics 