'Son not harmed by publicity' judge rules
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A High Court judge gave his reasons yesterday for ruling that media organisations can attend hearings in a case involving a father's struggle to care for his autistic son. The Court of Protection rules on the affairs of people unable to do so themselves and most cases are heard in private.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson, who also agreed the parties in the proceedings can be identified, said his conclusion concerning reporting of the case of 20-year-old Steven Neary was "not intended to set a precedent". Media representatives have previously reported on a Court of Protection case involving the musical prodigy David Paravicini.
In Steven's case, which was reported in yesterday's Independent, it is thought to be the first time a judge in the Court of Protection has agreed at the outset that the parties could be identified.
Mr Justice Jackson said: "Steven's circumstances are already in the public domain to a considerable extent. If the claims made by Mr Neary and the Official Solicitor are made out [win the verdict], the facts deserve to be known to the public. If they are not made out, it may be right for the record to be corrected."
He said he would "unhesitatingly exclude the media if the evidence showed a real possibility of detriment or distress to Steven of anything other than a trivial nature. However, I do not find the evidence for such detriment.
"There is no evidence whatever that Steven has suffered from the publicity that has already been generated. His life has not been destabilised and he has not been made anxious by the coverage so far."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments