Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
      The law is set out in Re S [2004] UKHL 47 , per Lord Steyn at paragraph 17:
      Subsequent caselaw confirms that when conducting this balancing exercise, welfare is 'a primary consideration' (but not paramount) ( ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2011] UKSC 4 ).
      The submissions I have received do not directly address the law, but are articulated in terms of the father's 'concerns', which I take to fall under the broad Article 8 umbrella.
      The father objects to publication on several grounds, in part on his own account, in part on behalf of his daughter, and in part on the mother's part:
  In my judgment, the Article 8 rights of each of the child and of both her parents to private and family life can largely be met by robust anonymisation. There is nothing particularly unique about the child or her parents in terms of vulnerability, and nothing about the facts set out in the judgment that would demand such a degree of redaction as to render publication impossible or pointless.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.