Hugh has only been able to speak out about his case because The Times went to court to challenge part of an injunction that gagged him and seven other individuals, including the child’s mother and grandmother.

Sir Mark Potter, sitting in the High Court, agreed that there was considerable public interest in the case, which had been highlighted by Camilla Cavendish in two articles this year and which generated an enormous response from readers. After hearing arguments by Adam Wolanski, counsel for The Times, the judge agreed that Cavendish should be allowed to interview Hugh and write a fuller version of the story. This highly unusual ruling has made it possible to print considerably more details of the case, though by no means all of them. There are a number of aspects to this case, which this newspaper believes to be of vital interest, but which still cannot be published. Because Hugh is not a party to the care proceedings, despite being part of Sam’s new family, he is limited in what he is allowed to say about the case.

Medway Council argued in court that it should not be named publicly, as this might lead to the identification of the child that we have called Sam. With more than 300 children in local authority care in the Kent borough, Sir Mark said that this was unlikely. The Times told the court that it had no interest in naming any social workers at this time.

Although this newspaper believes that serious errors have been made, we do not believe that blaming particular individuals would be helpful in getting this case resolved at the moment.

Yesterday the council restated its position: “The wellbeing and safety of this child is our paramount concern. Medway Council is working closely with other agencies, both in the UK and Europe, to ensure his safe return to this country.

“The recent detailed judgment in this case reflects the complexity of decision-making in family cases. This is still an ongoing case and bound by reporting restrictions. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment any further.”

All names have been changed to prevent the identification of the child, which is legally required in all care cases. We cannot show any pictures of them, or of their village, which might lead to the identification of the child.

Hugh has served his time in prison. It seems right that he is now able to talk – even if only in a limited way – about why he went there.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones