4. I see nothing in this case to require any particular prohibition and so, accordingly, I would simply propose that the order below be varied to delete any reference to proceedings in the Court of Appeal and, for the sake of clarity, further varied to ensure that in both paragraphs 1 and 2 there is specific reference to the proceedings in the Southampton County Court with case number S098P00026.
5. I would indeed, given Mr Miller's history of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships, go further and ensure that the prohibition distinguishes between evidence in those proceedings and judgments in those proceedings. In my view, given the noticeable trend towards reduction in privacy, that would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
6. So the variation will be that paragraph 1 will now appear as:
"From disclosing or communicating any evidence given in the Southampton County Court proceedings S098P00026 to any third party."
"In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing that he be restrained from publishing any evidence in the Southampton County Court proceedings S098P00026 on the Internet, in booklets or pamphlets or otherwise howsoever."
8. Mr Miller makes the forceful point that in the course of five years of active public debate in this sphere he has never put into the public arena any of the evidence in the Southampton Court proceedings and has no intention of doing so in the future. So, in a sense, the order that I would now propose is not going to change the future course of his campaign, but it is right that the order should go since the proceedings in the Southampton County Court are subject to the provisions of section 97.2 of the Children Act 1989.
9. LORD JUSTICE CLARKE: I agree.