Norfolk County Council v Webster & Ors

In family proceedings heard in the presence of the media, open justice requires disclosure of written advocacy and other documents where their absence would prevent the public from understanding the hearing. A judge must not vet or license a party’s proposed press statement. Judges decide questions of legality and protection from harm, but are not arbiters of taste, decency or responsible journalism. Article 10 protects both the substance and form of expression, subject to the consequences imposed by law. Where a child’s welfare and the public interest require disputed expert evidence to be properly explored, permission to obtain further evidence may be granted even without a prima facie case for reopening earlier findings.

These were interim care proceedings concerning a child whose parents had previously been involved in care proceedings relating to three older children. Earlier findings included that one child had suffered non-accidental fractures, and the parents sought permission to obtain further expert evidence challenging the medical basis of those findings.

The court considered the local authority’s interim care plan, the parents’ application to instruct a further paediatric expert, and issues concerning reporting restrictions, disclosure and the proposed publication of material by the parents. The central issues were whether the interim plan should be approved, whether further expert evidence should be permitted, and what limits open justice imposed on judicial involvement in press communications.

1. Interim care plan. The court endorsed the plan for the child to return home with his parents under an interim care order, with continuing professional monitoring, support and community-based assessment. The child’s long-term future remained for determination at the final hearing.
2. Further expert evidence. Permission was granted for the parents to instruct a paediatrician. This did not reflect a finding that they had established a prima facie case for reopening the earlier findings. In the unusual circumstances, it was in the child’s, the parents’ and the public interest that allegations of miscarriage of justice be properly explored and resolved. Any application to instruct a geneticist or reopen the earlier findings had to be made promptly and precisely by reference to the earlier judgments.
3. Open justice and disclosure. Where the media are permitted to attend a family hearing, the public interest may require disclosure of written advocacy essential to understanding what occurred and the basis of the court’s decision. The court therefore authorised disclosure of the local authority’s position statement and the directions order, subject to the continuing restrictions.
4. Judicial role and expression. Judges do not give advisory opinions or vet a party’s proposed press release. They may assess legality and whether publication would cause sufficiently serious harm to justify restraint, but they are not censors or arbiters of taste and decency. Article 10 protects information and ideas that offend, shock or disturb, and also protects the form in which they are conveyed. Judicial approval of a partisan press statement was therefore refused.
5. The court authorised the release of the earlier judgments in anonymised form, preserving the identities of the children, foster carer and experts. The reporting restriction and directions orders were continued in the terms set out in the judgment.

First-instance judgment in interim care proceedings. The judgment refers to earlier judgments and orders made in the same proceedings and in the previous care proceedings, but no appeal is stated.