C (A Child), Re

Practice Guidance on publication of family judgments is guidance, not law or a Practice Direction. In cases falling within paragraph 18, publication is a discretionary case-management decision for the judge. The judge must consider all the circumstances, relevant rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and any effect on current or potential criminal proceedings.

Article 8 makes necessity and proportionality central. Articles 6 and 10 provide context favouring openness but do not dictate the result. A judge may consider a reasoned objection, the risk of identification despite anonymisation, and the risk of an incomplete or misleading impression if related judgments are not published. The Court of Appeal should intervene only for an error of principle or a plainly wrong decision. Basic reasons are generally sufficient.

The appeal arose from extensive private-law proceedings concerning a child. After His Honour Judge Greene delivered what was intended to be the final judgment on 17 March 2014, the mother applied for permission to publish it in anonymised form. The father opposed publication. The judge refused permission on 23 May 2014 and renewed that decision after considering the mother’s submissions. He refused permission to appeal, but this court granted permission.

By the time of the appeal the father no longer opposed publication. The mother argued that the judge had failed to balance Convention rights and the public interest in open justice, had considered irrelevant matters, and had misapplied the President’s Practice Guidance. The central issue was whether the judge’s discretionary refusal was vitiated by an error of principle or was plainly wrong.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The refusal to permit publication of the anonymised judgment was upheld.
2. Status and scope of the Guidance. The President’s Practice Guidance of 16 January 2014 marked an incremental move towards greater transparency in the Family Courts. It was a developing guidance document, not law or a Practice Direction. Cases within paragraph 18 were expressly left to the judge’s discretion and involved a case-management decision at the end of the proceedings.
3. Appellate approach and reasons. The Court of Appeal should not enlarge or contradict the developing Guidance. Intervention was justified only if the judge had fallen into an error of principle or was otherwise plainly wrong. A judge deciding publication need give basic reasons, but need not deliver a full or compendious judgment, particularly when the request arises months after the substantive case has ended.
4. Convention rights. Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights informed the context. Article 6’s usual openness and Article 10’s freedom of expression supported transparency, but neither determined the discretionary outcome. Article 8 required consideration of necessity and proportionality because publication would disclose private information, even if anonymised. The judge had received the mother’s submissions on those rights and it was fanciful to conclude that he had ignored them.
5. Relevant considerations. A bare objection to publication should not itself carry weight, but the reasons advanced by the objecting party could be considered. The judge was also entitled to consider the possibility of jigsaw identification despite anonymisation and the risk that publishing one judgment without earlier judgments would create an incomplete or misleading impression. His statement that there were no public-interest factors was properly understood as identifying no additional factors tipping the balance towards publication. No error of principle or plainly wrong decision was established.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2015] EWCA Civ 500 (24 March 2015): appeal dismissed.
• Cambridge County Court — His Honour Judge Greene refused permission to publish the final judgment in anonymised form on 23 May 2014, renewed that refusal after considering further submissions, and refused permission to appeal on 24 July 2014.