London Borough of Haringey v Musa

Open justice and freedom of expression may justify identifying a family in a published family judgment where the case is already notorious and the public interest requires the proceedings to be understood, provided that identifying details such as the children’s whereabouts and placements remain protected.

The welfare of children is important but is not necessarily paramount in determining publication. A party bound by an extant court order requiring direct sibling contact cannot terminate that contact unilaterally. Any variation must be sought from the court, whose decision must account for the children’s welfare, the practical consequences of any interruption, and the risk of creating false expectations.

The proceedings concerned seven children. The five eldest were subject to care orders and the two youngest to placement orders. Earlier judgments had imposed reporting restrictions and had ordered continuing direct contact between the youngest children and their siblings, including after placement.

The local authority applied for permission to change the youngest children’s names and end direct sibling contact. A separate issue arose after the judgment of 19 March 2014 had been published on Bailii using the family surname and the local authority’s name, but was removed following communication by the local authority. The court reconsidered whether publication should identify the family in outline and gave directions concerning the unexplained termination of contact.

1. Publication and open justice. The court held that the welfare of children was an important consideration but was not necessarily paramount in deciding the form of publication. The family was already the subject of substantial public interest, including online discussion and debate in Nigeria. Concealing the identity of the family could increase suspicion and undermine open justice.
2. Balancing exercise. Freedom of expression, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and given particular protection by Human Rights Act 1998, section 12, had to be balanced against the welfare and privacy of the children. The balance favoured allowing the name of the local authority and the children’s surname to appear in the title of judgments deliberately placed on Bailii. Details revealing the children’s whereabouts or adoptive placements remained prohibited.
3. Existing contact order. The order made by Charles J required the local authority and any persons with whom the youngest children were placed to allow reasonable direct contact with the five eldest children. Its terms and the accompanying reasoning showed that the obligation was intended to continue after placement. The local authority’s decision to arrange a final farewell contact and terminate contact without first obtaining a variation was therefore contrary to the subsisting order.
4. Further directions. The court adjourned final assessment of the local authority’s conduct pending evidence explaining when, why and by whom the decision had been taken. Given the four-month interruption and the potential destabilising effect of imposed renewed contact, the court declined immediately to direct contact or require the eldest children’s guardian to raise the issue with them. The guardian for the youngest children was directed to meet the prospective adopters and report on the possibility of renewed contact.

Not stated in the judgment.