![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Black & Anor v Kalvans & Ors [2023] EWHC 3610 (Fam) (12 December 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/3610.html Cite as: [2023] EWHC 3610 (Fam) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1960
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Strand London, WC2A 2LL Tuesday, 12 December 2023 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) STUART BLACK | ||
(2) INTA ROMANE | Applicants | |
- and - | ||
(1) KASPARS KALVANS | ||
(2) SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL | ||
(3) THE CHILDREN | ||
(through their children's guardian) | Respondents |
____________________
THE FIRST RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented.
MALCOLM CHISHOLM COUNSEL (instructed by The Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent.
MS HOLLAND (Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Third and Fourth Respondents.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS:
"We wish to apply to relax the restrictions contained in s.12 in the Administration of Justice Act 1960 to allow Stuart Black and Inta Romane to write a book describing their experiences during the case and to discuss their experiences openly with others."
They said they are making the application because, "We want to tell our story". They anticipate it to be a book but possibly other media:
"… describing our experiences during the case and to discuss our experiences openly with others. The reason for telling our story is to highlight the experience that we had, raise awareness of the issues that kinship carers experience and tell the truth about an experience that caused us as a family enormous anxiety, strain and anguish."
They go on to explain that they think that "such a book could help others who encounter similar issues and could inform policy makers and practitioners", saying that they consider there is a significant public interest in fostering a public understanding of the experience of kinship carers.
"… an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case."
In this case in particular, it is Art.8 and Art.10. The focus for us is on that because the case has been completed. In other cases where applications are made to report in the court of ongoing proceedings Art.6 rights will also be of relevance, but in this case it is primarily the Art.8 and Art.10 rights which are engaged. Both rights are subject to qualification in order to protect the rights of others in effect. But in a case such as this where the court is in a position to make a determination after the conclusion of proceedings, the court is not constrained by Art.6 considerations but is able to carry out a purer weighing of the Art.8 and Art.10 rights where neither has precedence over the other. To the extent that anything has precedence in these evaluations, it is the rights of the children to have their welfare considered as a primary consideration. That does not give it determinative weight. It means that the weight of other considerations could override the children's welfare in practice; conceivably the pure Art.10 rights could outweigh the pure Art.8 welfare rights of a child in a particular case. But the court must take their welfare as a primary consideration and then look at the competing rights which are contended for.
The Threshold