X Council v B & Ors

Once care proceedings have ended and no injunction or continuing order restricts publicity, the former parties may generally identify themselves publicly, subject to the continuing restrictions imposed by section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Those restrictions do not prevent publication of the parties’ or children’s names, or discussion of the nature of the dispute within proper limits. They principally restrict publication of accounts of proceedings in private, filed documents, evidence, submissions and the judgment, unless the court directs otherwise. Where parental responsibility remains with the parents, and no specific issue arises for determination, the court should not interfere with their decision whether to waive anonymity. An older child may be entitled to decide personally whether to speak publicly.

The proceedings concerned an application by the mother and two children arising from concluded care proceedings. The original judgment had been authorised for publication only in anonymised form, and a later order had permitted identification of the local authority. The applicants sought a further amendment to the publication rubric so that the mother and the two children could identify themselves as the persons referred to by initials in the judgment.

The court considered the effect of the conclusion of the care proceedings, section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989, section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, the parties’ parental responsibility, and the wishes and ages of the children.

1. Application granted. The publication rubric was amended to permit the mother and the children J and W to waive their anonymity and identify themselves publicly as persons involved in the proceedings. W could do so only with the agreement of those holding parental responsibility.
2. The care proceedings had ended without an order, the local authority no longer had parental responsibility, and neither J nor W was a ward of court. The decision whether the children should speak publicly was therefore primarily a matter for the parents in exercising parental responsibility. No specific issue order had been sought, and there was no basis for State interference with that responsibility.
3. The restrictions under section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 no longer applied because the care proceedings had concluded. The continuing relevant restriction was section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. That section did not prohibit publication of the names of the parties or children, or discussion within proper limits of the nature of the dispute. It did restrict publication of accounts of what occurred before the judge in private, documents filed in the proceedings, evidence, submissions, and transcripts or notes of the judgment, unless the judge otherwise directed.
4. J was almost 16 and was of an age when he should generally be free to decide whether to discuss these matters publicly. The operation of the family justice system and the views of children involved in it were matters of legitimate public interest.
5. The court decided only whether anonymity could be waived. It did not assess whether publicity would be wise or advise the applicants. The permission did not authorise publication of D’s or N’s first names without permission, or identification of professionals and other participants. The applicants were warned that, once anonymity was waived, they could not control the media’s use of information already in the public domain.