Re S, A Child
[2004] UKHL 47 states:“The interplay between articles 8 and 10 has been illuminated by the opinions in the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 WLR 1232. For present purposes the decision of the House on the facts of Campbell and the differences between the majority and the minority are not material. What does, however, emerge clearly from the opinions are four propositions. First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test. This is how I will approach the present case.”49.In
- Mrs Justice Lieven DBE :
- Issues
- The Facts
- The Law
- Parental Responsibility Orders and contact issues
- FC v MC
- A v B and C
- D v E (Termination of Parental Responsibility)
- TJ v CV
- P and L (Minors)
- Section 91(14)
- Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) (Residence and Religious Heritage)
- Naming JM
- Re J (A Child)
- Re S, A Child
- Griffiths v Tickle
- The evidence
- Re B
- The Guardian’s position
- Conclusions and Findings
- Section 91(14)
- Naming JM in the judgment
- Tickle v Griffiths