P (A Child)

A reporting restriction order requires a fact-specific balancing exercise between the competing rights protected by Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention. The child’s welfare is a primary consideration, but is not paramount. A child’s anonymity and the confidentiality of the child’s carers may be protected where identification would risk harm and would add nothing to legitimate public debate. That protection may properly coexist with permitting a parent to identify herself and speak publicly about the family justice system. The court must not exercise editorial control over lawful media reporting, restrain criticism merely because it is inaccurate or offensive, or use an injunction to prevent defamatory publication. The remedy for defamation is an action for defamation.

Essex County Council applied for a reporting restriction order after extensive media coverage of proceedings concerning P, including Court of Protection proceedings relating to the mother and care and placement proceedings concerning the child. The mother wished to speak publicly about her treatment by the English courts, including under her own name. The child had been placed with prospective adopters, and the identity and whereabouts of the child and her carers were not public.

The central issue was how to balance the public interest in discussion of the proceedings, the mother’s freedom of expression, and P’s privacy, anonymity and welfare.

1. Application granted in limited form. The court made a reporting restriction order protecting the identity, whereabouts and images of P and her carers, while permitting publication of the mother’s first and maiden names.
2. The court conducted a balancing exercise between the specific rights engaged under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention. The interests of the child were a primary consideration, although they were not paramount.
3. P’s welfare required that neither she nor her carers be identified. Public discussion of the decisions made by the Court of Protection and family court, and the mother’s ability to tell her story, would not be advanced by identifying P or her carers. Publicity which disrupted the child’s placement could cause short, medium and long-term harm.
4. The mother’s ability to speak publicly about the conduct of the courts and public authorities was of compelling importance. Her identification by name or photograph would not realistically identify P and therefore did not justify restraining her expression.
5. Consistently with Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), the court had no editorial function in controlling how information was reported. Fear of inaccurate, vigorous or offensive criticism did not itself justify prior restraint. Nor could the reporting restriction jurisdiction be used to prevent defamatory publication; the remedy for defamation was an action for defamation.
6. The order was to remain in force until 6pm on 24 August 2030, unless P was returned to the mother’s care, in which event it would cease. There was no order as to costs.