Cumbria County Council v M & Ors

Publication of a family fact-finding judgment should ordinarily be permitted in a serious case, particularly where transparency and the public interest are significant. The court nevertheless retains control over publication and must balance those interests against the interests of justice and the rights and welfare of the parties, especially children.

Where credible new expert evidence may lead to the reopening of findings, immediate publication may be unfair and contrary to the children’s welfare. Publication may properly be deferred until the review question has been determined, with the intention that the judgment should be published when practicable.

The judgment concerned whether an earlier fact-finding judgment in care proceedings should be published. The earlier judgment contained findings concerning the death of a child and criticism of aspects of the investigation. Criminal investigations had since concluded without charges, but new expert medical opinions obtained during that investigation differed from the evidence available at the original hearing.

The father was preparing an application to reopen the findings. The media, the local authority and the mother supported immediate publication, while the father and the Children’s Guardian opposed it. The central issue was whether publication should proceed before the court decided whether the findings should be reviewed.

1. Publication deferred. The fact-finding judgment was not to be published immediately. The question would be reconsidered after determination of the father’s application to review the findings.
2. The Practice Guidance on publication of judgments, entitled Transparency in the Family Courts: Publication of Judgments [2014] 1 FLR 733, stated that fact-finding judgments in serious cases should ordinarily be published unless compelling reasons existed to the contrary. That was the starting point in this case, alongside the substantial public interest in transparency and accurate reporting.
3. The starting point did not determine the outcome. The court retained control over publication and had to give due weight to the public interest, the interests of justice and the individual interests of the parties, including the children’s welfare.
4. Immediate publication would probably attract considerable publicity shortly before a decision on whether the findings should be reviewed. In light of the credible new expert evidence, publication at that stage would be unfair to the father and contrary to the welfare of the children.
5. The court intended the judgment to be published when it could properly be published. At the next hearing, it would also consider whether parts of the judgment could be published if the full judgment remained unsuitable for publication.

Not an appeal. The judgment describes a further hearing in the existing family proceedings concerning publication of an earlier fact-finding judgment.