Attorney General to rule on Child Z
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.In a case with crucial implications for the freedom of the press, the Attorney General has been asked to consider whether newspapers are allowed to report a Commons Early Day Motion if it breaches a High Court injunction.
A blanket injunction was granted in March 1993 restraining the media from identifying or seeking information relating to a child, who can only be referred to as Z. Last year, however, the child's mother sought leave to allow her to publicise the treatment that her child is receiving at a specialised institution, and the Court of Appeal ruled that it was not in the child's interests for a film to be broadcast identifying her.
Ten days ago an MP put down an Early Day Motion which named the daughter. Several newspapers reported it and the Attorney General has been asked to consider whether they are in contempt of court.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments