X (A Child) (No 5)

When deciding whether to continue a reporting restriction order, the court must evaluate and balance all relevant public and private interests, including those protected by Articles 6, 8 and 10. No category of interest has automatic priority. The court must scrutinise the particular circumstances intensely and determine where the final balance lies. An order protecting a child and adoptive parents may remain justified after proceedings end, while protection for birth parents may cease where publicity was used to advance a narrative that the court has found false. Punishment and retribution are not legitimate aims of the balancing exercise.

The judgment concerned whether a reporting restriction order made during long-running care and adoption proceedings should continue after the proceedings had ended. The order protected the identity of X, the adoptive parents and the birth parents. Earlier family-court findings that X had suffered serious injuries had been set aside for rehearing after the birth parents obtained permission to appeal. Following the rehearing, the court found that the original findings had withstood scrutiny and that there had been no miscarriage of justice.

The issue was whether anonymity should continue for X and the adoptive parents, and whether it should also continue for the birth parents, particularly in light of their public allegations that the family proceedings had produced a miscarriage of justice.

1. The court continued the reporting restriction order in relation to X and the adoptive parents. The reasons that had originally justified their protection remained compelling.

2. In relation to the birth parents, the court applied the established principle that all interests protected by Articles 6, 8 and 10 must be evaluated and balanced. None has intrinsic priority, and public interests do not automatically outweigh private interests. The weight of each interest depends upon intense scrutiny of the circumstances and the final balance in the particular case.

3. The birth mother had powerful Article 8 interests, including vulnerability and the risk of renewed media attention. The court also accepted that identification was not necessary merely to protect the reputation of the family justice system or the local authority, and that punishment and retribution had no part in the evaluative task.

4. Nevertheless, the public-interest arguments were compelling. The birth parents had consistently maintained that they and X were victims of a miscarriage of justice and had used the media to propagate that message. The court had subsequently found that the original findings were vindicated and that there had been no miscarriage of justice. The principle that publicity sought by parents may operate as a two-edged sword therefore had substantial force.

5. In the particular circumstances, the public interests substantially outweighed the birth parents’ private interests. The reporting restriction order was not extended in relation to the birth parents.

The judgment described earlier procedural stages in the same litigation:

• Court of Appeal: Permission was granted to appeal the original fact-finding judgment, and the matter was remitted for rehearing.
• High Court (Family Division): The rehearing and subsequent reporting-restriction decisions were determined by Sir James Munby. This judgment decided the continuation of the order after the proceedings had ended.