Christopher Poole to be appointed King's Counsel
Chambers is delighted to announce that Christopher Poole, Joint Head of Chambers, is to be appointed King’s Counsel.
This is a highly significant and well-deserved achievement, reflecting Chris’s exceptional standing at the Bar and the consistently high quality of his work over many years. Appointment to silk recognises not only excellence in advocacy, but also depth of experience, sound judgment and leadership within the profession. Chambers is immensely proud of Chris’s success.
Chris practises in public law proceedings where he is frequently instructed on behalf of local authorities and children through their Guardians, and is well known for his work in complex and sensitive matters, including cases involving serious physical and sexual abuse. His practice spans Children Act proceedings, adoption, wardship and medical treatment cases.
Beyond his casework, Chris has been commissioned to undertake independent case reviews into local authority decision-making, and is a respected advocacy trainer, pupil supervisor and seminar speaker. He was elected a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn in 2025, further recognising his contribution to the profession.
Chris’s appointment as King’s Counsel is a moment of real pride for Chambers. We congratulate him warmly on this outstanding achievement.
Growing Up Online - By Kyri Lefteri
By Kyri Lefteri
Children’s law in England is a field defined by its contradictions: it is both deeply personal and profoundly systemic; both reactive and proactive. It is a space where the law intersects with the most vulnerable moments in human lives, and where practitioners must navigate the delicate balance between legal principles and the realities of childhood. As we look at the current landscape, it becomes clear that this area of law is not just evolving, it is being reshaped by the pressures of modern society. This article seeks to focus on the hidden dangers facing children today arising from online harm and how the current law in the UK is falling behind in the curve of societal developments.
The Legal Black Hole of Parental Oversharing
Child protection is the moral heart of Children’s law, but it is also its most ethically complex area. Practitioners must grapple with the tension between intervention and autonomy, between safeguarding children and respecting family dynamics and the individual choices and values of each parent and household. The rise of online dangers such as cyberbullying, grooming, and exploitation are new challenges to professionals and courts tasked with considering what amounts to significant harm and what is a diverse, but ultimately, reasonable, exercise of parental responsibility.
Many parents appear to have a lack of understanding of the dangers that surround online social media platforms. The modern propensity of parents to publish their children’s lives on public platforms, with children seemingly having no say in the matter, raises serious concerns about autonomy, privacy and the safety of the children involved. In an age where a child’s life can be documented from birth on social media, the legal system in the UK remains dangerously behind the curve. Despite existing protections under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, children still lack meaningful power to control their digital identities, especially when the harm comes not from strangers or corporations, but from their own parents.
The problem lies in a fundamental imbalance. Parents are both the legal guardians of a child’s rights and often the very people violating them. The act of “sharenting”, where parents share personal details, images, and milestones of their children online, is widely normalised, yet it can have lasting consequences. Impacts of “sharenting” on children range from the more widely understood, such as identity theft and bullying, to the more recently emerging malevolent creation of “deep fakes” and the sexual use of photographs by those intent to cause serious harm. The problem is that the law offers children minimal recourse and the age old adage of the ‘horse having already bolted’ could not be more apt.
Under UK GDPR, a child has a right to privacy, data protection, and erasure. Recital 38 UK GDPR states that “Children merit specific protection with regard to their personal data, as they may be less aware of the risks, consequences and safeguards concerned and their rights in relation to the processing of personal data. Such specific protection should, in particular, apply to the use of personal data of children for the purposes of marketing or creating personality or user profiles and the collection of personal data with regard to children when using services offered directly to a child. The consent of the holder of parental responsibility should not be necessary in the context of preventive or counselling services offered directly to a child.”
Article 17 introduces a right for individuals, including children, to have personal data erased. This right is not absolute and only applies in certain circumstances. The Information Commissioner’s Office emphasises the right to erasure if the request relates to data collected from children, which reflects the enhanced protection of children’s information, especially in online environments under UK GDPR. The guidance states that “if you process data collected from children, you should give particular weight to any request for erasure if the processing of the data is based upon consent given by a child – especially any processing of their personal data on the internet. This is still the case when the data subject is no longer a child, because a child may not have been fully aware of the risks involved in the processing at the time of consent.”
But these rights are evidently filtered through the concept of “Gillick competence”, a vague and subjective test of whether a child is mature enough to exercise those rights independently. There appears to be no relief for the children who are not yet deemed competent to exercise those rights. Even when children are competent and they object to the content shared, enforcement is rare. Platforms often side with the uploader, and there is no clear legal mechanism that empowers children to force the removal of unwanted posts by their parents.
Moreover, the ICO’s guidance, while child-friendly in tone, lacks legal teeth when it comes to holding parents accountable for online harms they may cause. The UK has yet to establish a precedent that shows a real willingness to support children’s privacy claims against parents.
The Children’s Code, created by the Information Commissioner’s Office following the enactment of Section 123 of the Data Protection Act 2018, creates obligations for online services to design age-appropriate systems, Due to the Data (Use of Access) Act (DUAA) coming into force on 19 June 2025, the guidance is under review and according to the ICO website, there has been no public consultation on the proposed changes and the final version of the guidance is due for publication in Autumn of 2025. Section 81 DUAA adds a new duty under Article 25(1B) UK GDPR for developers and services to introduce more child focused risk assessments and forces organisations to not just “could children access this service” but “what design features, defaults, interfaces etc might expose them to risk, and how to guard against that.” The Code may see an update on guidance and instructions to reflect these new statutory duties.
These measures and developments are a step in the right direction, but they target tech platforms and developers, not individuals. They sidestep the growing issue of family-based data exposure, which often begins before a child can speak, let alone consent.
Risks of AI in Children Law
The growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal processes introduces both opportunities and risks to children law. AI-powered tools, such as predictive analytics and automated decision-making systems, have the potential to streamline case management and improve efficiency. However, their use also raises significant concerns. For example:
- Bias and Fairness: When used in the court system, AI systems may inadvertently perpetuate biases present in the data they are trained on, leading to unfair outcomes in sensitive family disputes.
- Privacy and Data Security: The reliance on AI tools often involves processing large amounts of personal data, raising concerns about the security and confidentiality of sensitive information related to children and families within Children’s Law proceedings
- Human Oversight: While AI can assist in decision-making, it cannot replace the nuanced judgment and empathy required in children law cases. Over-reliance on AI risks undermining the human element essential to safeguarding children’s welfare.
- Recent Incident Highlighting AI Risks: A recent case involving a barrister who submitted suspected fake AI-generated case citations underscores the dangers of relying on AI without proper verification. The barrister faced significant professional consequences after the fabricated cases were exposed. This incident serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals, highlighting the importance of human oversight and the need to verify AI-generated outputs. In child protection, such errors could have devastating consequences, potentially jeopardising the welfare of children and families.
- Litigants in Person: Unrepresented individuals are increasingly relying on AI-generated content that can be inaccurate or not tailored to their specific circumstances. This can lead to procedural mistakes and misinterpretation of the law by litigants in person. Perhaps most impactful is the potential to present irrelevant or even misleading arguments to the court. While AI can offer some support to litigants in person, its misuse may ultimately impact the court’s ability to make informed, balanced decisions.
Legal professionals must approach the integration of AI with caution, ensuring robust oversight and ethical guidelines to mitigate these risks while leveraging its benefits.
Opportunities for Innovation: A Call to Action
The challenges facing Children’s Law are not just legal; they are societal, ethical, and deeply human. The rise of online harm and the complexities of AI add new dimensions to an already intricate field. Practitioners must navigate these challenges with care, balancing the demands of the law with the realities of the lives it governs.
Children’s Law in England is at a crossroads, shaped by the pressures of modern society and the evolving needs of the families it serves. It is a field that demands not just legal expertise but empathy, creativity, and a commitment to justice. The ultimate goal is not just to resolve disputes but to create a system that truly supports the welfare of children.
It’s time to reconsider whether parental authority online should remain unchecked. As children increasingly come of age with a digital footprint they never agreed to, the legal system must evolve to reflect their rights not just as dependents, but as individuals. A robust legal framework should recognise a child’s autonomy over their own image and data, especially when the harm comes from home.
In the absence of such a legal framework, education for parents becomes key, which is also, sadly lacking. Parenting in today’s world seems to many like a constant fight to keep your head above water. It would likely be a relief to parents if the law could at least highlight these issues, to prompt parents to think about respecting children as individuals. Until then, children in the UK remain vulnerable to a lifetime of exposure, with limited tools to reclaim their digital selves.
This is not just a legal challenge; it is a societal one, requiring collaboration across disciplines and a willingness to confront difficult questions. As practitioners, we have the opportunity, and the responsibility to shape the future of children law. The question is not just “What can we do?” but “What must we do?” For in the end, the welfare of children is not just a legal issue; it is a moral imperative.
Hannah Watson takes tenancy
Following successful completion of her pupillage in October 2025, we are delighted that Hannah Watson has accepted an offer of tenancy with chambers.
Hannah undertakes all areas of public and private law children work and has already developed a strong practice throughout her second six months of pupillage.
We wish Hannah a long and successful career with us.
Chambers & Partners - 2026
We are delighted to announce that New Court Chambers has once again been recognised in Chambers & Partners for Family: Children and Financial Remedies. This independent ranking reflects our deep strength across these areas, and underlines our commitment to providing outstanding advocacy and client services.
Individually, 14 members have also been ranked in recognition of their outstanding reputations and service to clients.
On the set as a whole: “members of New Court Chambers are regularly instructed in complex cases, including some of the most significant family law cases before the courts.”
On the clerking team: “A team of experienced and supportive clerks ensures there is a seamless working relationship between the members of chambers and clients.“
We extend congratulations to all members of Chambers and the clerking team whose hard work has contributed to this achievement. Looking ahead, we remain committed to maintaining and building upon this recognition, continuing to provide exceptional advocacy, advice and outstanding client service.
Open Justice Principle – Where are the lines drawn in Care Proceedings?
Re HMP [2025] EWCA Civ 824
Jemimah Hendrick led by Joy Brereton K.C. (4PB) successfully appeared on behalf of the children’s guardian (instructed by Charlotte Image-Flower of Dawson Cornwall), appealing a decision made by Mrs Justice Lieven on 15 January 2025 that allowed disclosure from care proceedings, and reporting of information in relation to the subject children. This appeal was also supported by George Lafanzindes on behalf of Z (the second carer).
Case Summary
This judgment considered the principle of open justice as identified in Dring (on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (Media Lawyers Association intervening) [2019] UKSC 38. The Court of Appeal considered the limits of this principle in the context of care proceedings under the Children Act 1989.
The Court of Appeal reminded us that Dring identified two main purposes of the open justice principle namely:
- to enable public scrutiny of the way in which the courts decide cases so as to provide public accountability and secure public confidence; and
- to enable public understanding of the justice system.
The decision at first instance was made by Lieven J who granted the BBC’s applications for:
- access to various documents relating to the care proceedings; and
- permission to report the contents of those documents subject to certain limitations and restrictions which were designed to protect, as far as possible, the interests and rights of the children.
By the time of the substantive hearing it was known to the BBC that the placement that they wanted information on was a placement prior to the proceedings and was not considered or endorsed by the court. Despite this, the BBC amended their application focusing on the issue of ‘private fostering’ and continued to seek the disclosure and permission to report.
Mrs Justice Lieven gave the BBC permission to report on the basis that:
- The disclosure would amount to an interference with the children’s right to privacy;
- It would not add a ‘great deal’ to what the BBC already knew and could publish in any event;
- The granting of further access and the freedom to report would not ‘add materially to the harm that the children would suffer’;
- There was a real public interest;
- Granting the order would ‘serve the interests of transparency’ in the ‘Family Justice System’ in accordance with Dring;
- The article 8 / article 10 balance was therefore, to her Ladyship, ‘quite clearly in favour of allowing reporting’;
- While the Media reporting Transparency Pilot did not bear directly on this case, the principles it is based on included the ‘greater need for transparency in the Family Court system’.
This seemed to the children’s guardian to go too far, tipping the balance unfairly against the children’s rights to privacy. The three grounds of appeal on behalf of the children’s guardian were:
- That the application was not made for any purpose connected with the open justice principle; accordingly Dring was not engaged and there was no balancing process to conduct; alternatively,
- That the balancing process which the judge (Lieven J) undertook was flawed because it gave undue weight to the fact that certain information relating to the children was already in the public domain, and;
- That the judge placed insufficient weight on the rights of the children (“ground 3”).
Conclusions of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal decision, given by the Lady Chief Justice, King LJ and Warby LJ, restated that ‘open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle’ and that the ‘underlying rationale is the need to allow the media and the public access to information about the work done in the courts and tribunals’.
The Court of Appeal however also considered that ‘it is important to understand and respect the limits of the open justice principle in this context’ and that ‘the open justice principle does not extend to affording third parties’ access to such information for reasons unconnected with examining the work of the courts and tribunals and the judges who sit in them’.
Lieven J was found to have overlooked the limits of the Dring principles and the Court of Appeal concluded that ‘the judge’s approach to the application of the open justice principle was wrong in law’. The Court of Appeal considered that the BBC’s investigation was ‘not in any way designed to throw light on the workings of the family courts and their judges’, therefore publication of the information sought by the BBC did not assist the public to understand how (or why) decisions about children are made in the family courts.
Having succeeded on appeal on ground 1, ground 2 and 3 did not fall to be considered. The Court of Appeal concluded:
- The BBC was not unreasonable in making its initial application in the context of care proceedings at a time when it believed that the private fostering arrangement had been sanctioned by the local authority. Once it became clear that the local authority was not involved until after that arrangement had come to an end, and that the courts had had no involvement at any stage of the arrangement, the application should have been withdrawn. Access to information about the underlying events, if to be pursued, would have to be sought by alternative routes, such as potentially an application under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- The principles of transparency and open justice are there to allow the workings of the justice system to be understood and examined as appropriate. Nothing in this judgment is intended to undermine the importance of those principles or to hinder or discourage the welcome progress that is being made in the application of those principles across all jurisdictions, including in the family courts. The role of journalists in reporting on care cases is clearly in the public interest. However, care proceedings cannot be regarded as an available source of material for journalistic endeavour that has nothing to do with the aims of the open justice principle.
Impact on cases going forward
As of 2025, the Transparency Pilot has become guidance in all family courts. It is therefore unsurprising, but important, that the boundaries of these rules are considered carefully by the Higher Courts, including the Court of Appeal, so that it is clear to all tribunals in the family justice system that are dealing with these applications where the boundaries lie.
What is clear from the decision in this case is that the boundaries of the Open Justice Principle do not extend to those matters outside of the court arena, for example, private family placements that are known to the local authority. The judgment highlighted and stressed the following:
- The central error into which the judge fell was to define the (family) justice system as encompassing not only the work of the courts but also (independently of the courts) the operations of local authorities and other state agencies working with children, and then to apply the principles identified in Dring to the entire (family) justice system as so defined.
- That is not what Dring is about. The application of open justice principles is confined to the system of justice in the narrow sense. Disclosure for one of the purposes identified in Dring may incidentally facilitate scrutiny of decision-making by local authorities and other public bodies. But enabling such scrutiny is not itself a purpose which requires or justifies disclosure under the open justice principle.
Whilst it is accepted that every case where this is an issue will have to be determined on its own facts and merits it is important to take into account the limitations set out in this case in a context where greater and greater transparency is being encouraged as ‘the norm’.
It is an interesting aside to note that because of the appeal being successful on ground 1 (namely the open justice principle ground) the Court of Appeal did not turn to consider the welfare issues raised by grounds 2 or 3 on behalf of the children. From our point of view, on behalf of the children, this was clearly a case where the media reporting on the matter would have been so contrary to the children’s welfare that an application to do so should be refused.
Those involved in proceedings relating to children should not fear being the lone voice in the room that considers the child’s welfare when applications to report are made to the court. It is the view of this author that there will likely soon be a case that the court has to grapple with where the welfare best interest line is drawn in the face of applications for disclosure and to report information.
Jemimah Hendrick
Legal 500 - 2026
We are delighted to announce that Chambers has once again been ranked as a Leading Set by Legal 500, with 14 members receiving individual rankings.
Congratulations also go to our clerking team who received fantastic feedback for the service they continue to offer clients.
Thank you to all those who provided such positive references and for your continued support.
To view this year’s rankings, click here.
Robert Wilkinson appointed as a Deputy District Judge
Robert Wilkinson has been appointed as a Deputy District Judge by the Lady Chief Justice to sit on the South Eastern Circuit within the Civil Jurisdiction. Robert will sit on a part‑time, fee‑paid basis whilst continuing his practice as a member of New Court Chambers.
A specialist in both public and private law children matters, Robert is widely recognised for his expertise across a broad range of cases and is ranked as a leading junior in Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500.
Newsletter - August 2025
This latest edition, available here, contains case law updates, with summaries of: The Trust V Z & Ors (Withdrawal of Medical Treatment) [2025] EWHC 2100 (Fam), which provides a recap of the applicable principles when the court has to determine whether to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a child; AA (Mother) v XX (Father) [2025] EWHC 2165 (Fam), which serves as a reminder that if a party is found in contempt, the court can and may deem a term of imprisonment the appropriate outcome; and Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, in which an appeal application was allowed following a fact finding hearing involving serious allegations, the Court of Appeal having considered the analysis contained within the original judgment.
We hope you enjoy this latest issue.
Newsletter - July 2025
The July 2025 issue of New Court Chambers’ Newsletter is now available to read here.
This latest edition contains case law updates, including a summary of H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 72, in which New Court’s own Sabrina Polak, who was led by Joanne Brown KC, successfully appeared on behalf of the local authority in a recent appeal.
Additional case summaries include an overview of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision concerning sibling contact following a placement order, guidance from Poole J on the procedure for accepting oral evidence via video link from a person outside of the jurisdiction, as well as a helpful took-kit on how to tactically approach non-engagement from a respondent in financial remedy proceedings.
We hope you enjoy reading this edition.