N (A Child), Re

Rule 11.4(1)(c) of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 permits a party to communicate any information relating to children proceedings where necessary to make and pursue a complaint against a person concerned in the proceedings. The complaint need not concern the proceedings, be made to a disciplinary body, or be made with prior judicial permission. The court’s power under rule 11.2(1)(c) to restrict such communication is residual and must be exercised cautiously and only in limited circumstances. The safeguards include necessity, limits on onward communication, and the prohibition on communication to the public. Those safeguards, together with Article 8 obligations, protect confidential material. A party was therefore entitled to disclose expert psychiatric reports and supporting documents to the GMC without prior permission.

The father applied in private-law children proceedings concerning N for permission to disclose to the GMC two psychiatric reports and related documents prepared for the proceedings. He wished to complain about the expert’s methodology and competence, including his assessment of the mother. The application was initially considered under the former disclosure regime, but Part XI of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 came into force before determination. The mother and the child’s guardian accepted disclosure of the report concerning the father but opposed disclosure of material concerning the mother. The issue was whether rule 11.4(1)(c) permitted the proposed disclosure without prior judicial sanction and, if so, whether the court should restrict it under rule 11.2(1)(c).

1. Application determined. No restrictive direction was made under rule 11.2(1)(c). The father was released from his undertaking not to disclose the material. He did not require the court’s permission to make the disclosure permitted by rule 11.4(1)(c).
2. Rule 11.4(1)(c) is expressed in wide terms. It permits a party to communicate any information relating to the proceedings to any person where necessary to make and pursue a complaint against a person or body concerned in the proceedings. The complaint need not relate to the proceedings and need not be made to a disciplinary or regulatory body. Persons concerned in proceedings include witnesses, advocates, solicitors, guardians, officers and judges.
3. The word “necessary” has the Strasbourg meaning. The communication must respond to a pressing social need and be more than merely useful, reasonable or desirable. The complaint itself need not be necessary; the communication must be necessary to enable the complaint to be made and pursued.
4. The statutory safeguards are material. Rule 11.4(3) restricts onward communication to the purpose for which the information was initially communicated and requires the specified consent for further communication. Rule 11.2(2) prevents communication to the public at large or any section of the public without prior judicial permission. Non-compliance may expose the communicator or recipient to contempt under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
5. The court’s power to give a direction under rule 11.2(1)(c) is residual. The new regime deliberately abolished the general requirement for prior judicial sanction, and judges must not recreate the former system by routine intervention. Restrictions should be imposed cautiously and only in limited circumstances.
6. The confidentiality of psychiatric and medical material engages Article 8. The safeguards in Part XI, together with the common-law and Convention obligations of the GMC, were adequate. It was necessary for the GMC to receive both reports, the letter of instruction, material supplied to the expert, and the father’s relevant statements and critique so that it could understand and investigate the complaint. The court was not required to assess or pre-judge the merits of that complaint.

First-instance decision on written submissions. No prior appellate decision was identified in the judgment.