Child X (Residence & Contact- Rights of Media Attendance) (Rev 2)

Accredited media representatives have a prima facie right to attend private family hearings under FPR rule 10.28, but the court may exclude them where this is necessary in the interests of a child or where justice would otherwise be impeded. Necessity requires an Article 8 and Article 10 balancing exercise, including intense focus on the competing rights, pressing social need, proportionality, and effective safeguards. Celebrity status gives neither parents nor children a more favourable legal status. The burden lies on the party seeking exclusion. Temporary exclusion will ordinarily be preferred, but total exclusion may be proportionate where confidential evidence, the child’s welfare and the integrity of therapeutic processes create a compelling case. Applications made before the hearing should generally notify the media through the prescribed procedure.

These ongoing private-law residence and contact proceedings concerned a child whose father was a public celebrity. The parties sought to exclude the media from future hearings following the introduction of Family Proceedings Rules 1991 rule 10.28, which gave duly accredited media representatives a prima facie right to attend private hearings subject to exclusion under rule 10.28(4).

The proceedings involved sensitive evidence from a child psychiatrist and a CAFCASS officer concerning the child’s emotional welfare, the parents’ relationship and contact arrangements. A County Court judge had previously made a contra mundum injunction, but the application had not followed the relevant High Court and media-notification procedures. The questions were whether the media should be excluded from the imminent and final hearings, whether the injunction should continue, and what procedural safeguards should govern applications for exclusion.

1. Media exclusion. The application to exclude the media from the imminent hearing was granted under FPR rule 10.28(4)(a)(i) and (b). The court was satisfied that exclusion was necessary in the interests of the child and that justice would otherwise be impeded. The order was not extended finally to the later hearing, because circumstances might change, although exclusion would likely remain appropriate if the issues and evidence remained materially the same.
2. Applicable approach. Rule 10.28 creates a prima facie right of attendance, not an unqualified right. The party seeking exclusion bears the burden of establishing necessity. The court must conduct the Article 8 and Article 10 balancing exercise, applying intense focus to the specific rights asserted, considering pressing social need and proportionality, and giving relevant and sufficient reasons. The decision is a value judgment, rather than a conventional discretion between equally legitimate outcomes. Celebrity status does not alter the legal status of the parents or child, although the intensity of media interest and the resulting risk to the child may be relevant facts.
3. Application to the evidence. The evidence concerned highly sensitive matters which were not in the public domain. The child had spoken confidentially to professionals on the understanding that the information would be disclosed only within the proceedings. Media attendance risked undermining that trust, inhibiting professional evidence and derailing therapeutic and welfare work. Statutory anonymity and reporting restrictions were insufficient to remove those risks. Although temporary withdrawal will ordinarily be appropriate where only particular evidence creates the problem, total exclusion was proportionate here because the evidence at the imminent hearing was likely to be confined to such sensitive welfare matters.
4. Injunction and procedure. The anonymity provisions of the injunction substantially reflected Children Act 1989, s 97(2), but its prohibition on soliciting information required Convention justification and remained necessary on the evidence. The injunction was to continue until the end of the proceedings, subject to amendment and later reconsideration. The earlier failure to notify or properly serve the media was a serious procedural deficiency. Future applications to exclude the media from a substantive hearing at the outset should, where practicable, be notified through the Press Association CopyDirect procedure with an informative but non-confidential witness statement. Advance notification is not generally required for temporary exclusion during a hearing.

This was a first-instance decision in ongoing residence and contact proceedings. The County Court proceedings were transferred to the High Court for determination of media attendance, reporting restrictions and related procedural issues.