78. In the leading case of In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593, very careful consideration was given, at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, to balancing the public interest in publishing the name of a woman accused of murdering her child against the welfare interests of her surviving child who was living with his father. The public interest, in the legal sense, of publication was very strong. There was expert evidence of the welfare interests of the surviving child. It could not be more different from this case. As Lord Mance has demonstrated, there is no public interest in the legal sense in the publication of this information. There is no expert evidence of the interests of these children. These are all matters which should be properly argued at trial, not pre-empted by premature disclosure. LORD TOULSON: (dissenting) 79. I respectfully disagree with the judgment of the majority. Despite the arguments persuasively advanced by Mr Desmond Browne QC on behalf of PJS, I have concluded on reflection that the injunction originally granted by the Court of Appeal on 22 January 2016 should not be reinstated. That injunction provided that NGN (as I will refer to the respondent) should not publish any information which might lead to PJS’s identification, or any of the information referred to in a confidential schedule to the order, until trial of the action or further order. 80. To Lord Mance’s full summary of the facts I would add only that there have been numerous twitter hashtags of a fairly obvious kind leading to material identifying PJS in connection with the injunction. 81. I agree with Lord Mance that it was incorrect for the Court of Appeal to say, as it did, that section 12 of the Human Rights Act (“HRA”) enhances the weight which article 10 rights carry in the balancing exercise with the article 8 rights of PJS. In its judgment dated 22 January 2016 the Court of Appeal set out correctly the interplay between articles 8 and 10 (at para 30 and following), and I doubt whether the court really intended to adopt a different approach in April, but that is not a sufficient basis to re-interpret, or overlook as immaterial, what it said on the later occasion. In consequence, this court must review for itself the question whether the January injunction should be set aside because of a change of circumstances. 82. Although it does not affect the need for this court to form its own judgment whether the January injunction should be set aside, I would not subscribe to Lord Mance’s other three criticisms of the Court of Appeal; that it wrongly referred to “limited public interest”; that it applied a quantitive test to the level of disclosure which there had been, thereby overlooking the invasiveness and distress which the proposed publication would entail; and that its decision involved a failure to ensure Page 35