No worries soso. Me too.
Here's the link to the original Supreme Court decision under Justice Brereton:
'JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The child the subject of these proceedings whom I shall call Julian was one of four siblings. Julian was removed from the care of his mother at 7 months age because of concerns that he was at risk of harm (associated with domestic violence and drug abuse), and placed with foster carers. Julians sister, who is a year older than Julian and whom I shall call Sarah, had been removed from her mothers care before Julian was born, and the Childrens Court had allocated parental responsibility for her to the Minister; she was later placed with the same carers as Julian, a week after he was. Subsequently, having found that there was no realistic possibility of restoration to their parents, the Childrens Court made final orders allocating parental responsibility for Julian and Sarah to the Minister until they attain 18; their care plans contemplate that they will remain in their placement with their current carers until 18. The other two siblings, who are younger than Julian, remain in their mothers care, and there are apparently no current child protection concerns in respect of them.
Julian disappeared some years ago; it is not presently known whether he is alive or dead. A police investigation continues. There has been considerable media interest in his disappearance, and Julians name and image have been the subject of widespread publicity. However, the fact that Julian was, at the time of the disappearance, in the Ministers parental responsibility and placed with foster carers has not been the subject of publicity and is not widely known, and the publicity has generally referred to the carers as Julians parents.
The carers have recently applied to the Childrens Court for sole parental responsibility for Sarah. In response, the mother has stated that she seeks restoration of Sarah to her care. The father, who is now separated from the mother, is not actively engaged. The proceedings were to be heard from 6 December 2016 over four days; whether that hearing proceeded and if so its outcome is not known to me. However, in those proceedings Sarah has, at the suggestion of her independent legal representative, been referred to by a pseudonym, in order to protect her from being identified as Julians sister.
The first defendant Allanna Pearl Smith is an advocate for children's rights and interests. In connection with promoting a coronial inquest into Julian's disappearance, she and her associates wish to publish a petition and online statements, which would include information to the effect that Julian was in foster care, and/or was a state ward at the time of his disappearance.
[1]
The plaintiff Secretary of the Department of Family & Community Services (FACS) applies for injunctions (1) permanently restraining Ms Smith from further publishing, whether in writing or by internet or any other electronic means, information conveying that Julian has been placed in foster care and/or is under the parental responsibility of the Minister for Family & Community Services and/or is a ward of the state or to similar effect; and (2) commanding her to remove from the Walking Warriors 4 Missing Children Facebook page any posts which convey those matters. Orders to that effect were made
ex parte on 2 September 2016 until 7 September 2016, when the summons was first returnable, and on that day they were continued, on an interlocutory basis, until the hearing on 15 November.
[2] The Court also ordered that there be no publication which would identify Julian as connected with these proceedings, save to the extent necessary to implement the orders. In the course of the hearing on 15 November, following which judgment was reserved, order (1) was continued until further order.'
