X (A Child) (No 2), Re

A judgment handed down in public is not subject to Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12. Publication requires no judicial permission unless a specific injunction or other order restricts it. The standard Family Division rubric applies to judgments handed down in private and makes permission to publish conditional upon compliance with its anonymity requirements.

Interim anonymity may properly be maintained where identifying a party would intensify publicity and indirectly expose a child or adoptive family to pressure or identification. Applicants for reporting restriction orders must give the media proper and timely notice. The judge alone is responsible for deciding whether a judgment is sent to BAILII, is correctly anonymised, or should later be removed.

The judgment concerned the continuation of a reporting restriction order made after an earlier judgment in the same child-protection and adoption proceedings had been handed down in open court and published on BAILII. The order concerned the identification of the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

The court also considered whether the earlier judgment required a standard Family Division publication rubric, the effect of Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12, the adequacy of notice given to the Press Association, and responsibility for publication and anonymisation of judgments. The central issues were whether the reporting restriction order should continue temporarily and what procedural standards should govern such applications.

1. The reporting restriction order was extended until the conclusion of the next directions hearing. The anonymity of the child and adoptive parents was maintained. The birth parents’ anonymity was also maintained temporarily, not principally for their own protection, but to reduce the risk of heightened publicity affecting the adoptive parents and exposing or identifying the child.

2. A judgment handed down in private in proceedings to which Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12(1)(a), applies cannot be published without the judge’s permission, which may be given subject to conditions. The standard rubric has two essential parts: permission to publish and conditions preserving anonymity. A person who publishes contrary to the conditions may be in contempt under section 12, although the rubric is not an injunction: applying the analysis in Re RB (Adult) (No 4) [2011] EWHC 3017 (Fam).

3. Those principles do not apply to a judgment handed down in public. Section 12 applies only to reports of proceedings before a court sitting in private. No permission is required to publish a public judgment in the absence of a specific injunction or other order. The omission of the standard rubric from the earlier judgment was therefore deliberate and justified.

4. The effect of naming the birth parents and publishing photographs would be materially greater publicity. In the unusual circumstances, that publicity would indirectly affect the adoptive parents and the child. The temporary order was therefore justified as a protective measure for the child and adoptive parents, while the court remained unable to determine the longer-term approach before the evidence and the local authority’s case were complete. The approach reflected the reasoning in In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2010] UKSC 1.

5. Applicants for reporting restriction orders must comply meticulously with the applicable notification requirements. The media must receive sufficient information to identify the case and decide whether to oppose the application. It was generally unnecessary to disclose the child’s present name, precise date of birth, or the birth parents’ full addresses. Responsibility for sending a judgment to BAILII, ensuring proper anonymisation, and requesting its removal rests with the judge alone.