View source for LB Redbridge v G (No 2) (2014) EWCOP 959, (2014) MHLO 28

"It seems to me that, weighing these matters one against the other, it is not in G's best interests for her to be able or permitted to communicate with the press at this stage; she has expressed at least ambivalent feelings, it appears, about the engagement of the media. I am further concerned that any private information which G vouchsafes to a journalist at this stage may, of course, be exposed to more public examination in the event that the Reporting Restriction Order is subsequently varied or discharged. Until the court can take a clearer view about G's capacity to make such relationships with the press it is, in my judgment, clearly in G's best interests that I should make an interim order that she should not make such communications. ... The second matter which I have been invited to adjudicate upon is what, if any, role should be played by the Applicant authority in the interim period between now and the 2nd May hearing. ... I therefore propose to accede to the application of this Local Authority which will require C and F to facilitate visits by the London Borough of Redbridge social workers ..."

==Related judgments==
{{related judgments|LB Redbridge v G (2014) EWHC 485 (COP), (2014) MHLO 13}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCOP 959}}

[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]