“Many of the same arguments as to privacy and publicity can now be addressed to the domestic abuser in family proceedings. He, or she (such as in the case of T’s mother), may not have abused another person on the scale undertaken by Charlie Pearce; but the open justice principle is a very long-standing principle which cannot be overridden by a mere rule made by subsidiary legislation passed by the negative resolution procedure. Watch this space….”
Application of the open justice principle to a child in criminal proceedings
Why was the name of the 17 year-old Charlie Pearce (born 3 July 200), a double rapist and attempt murderer publicised whilst he was still a child (R v Pearce (Press Restrictions)Haddon-Cave J (7 December 2017); but the names kept private of the parents of the unattractive stalking – and worse – mother and her cohabitant (‘Mr JM’) of 10 year-old T in Re T (A Child)  EWCA Civ 1889 (23 November 2017). Why is it that parents who have been responsible for allowing their children to suffer sometimes serious harm while in their care are not named; whereas the name of Mr Khuja (reported on BAILII as ‘PNM’), who was not prosecuted for any offence is made public (Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd  UKSC 49).
Most startlingly, a man (say) can…
View original post 900 more words