A and B (Children)

Publication of information from private care proceedings requires prior court permission under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. The court must balance all relevant interests under Articles 6, 8 and 10, giving no category of interest automatic precedence. The assessment requires intense scrutiny of the particular circumstances, including the quantity and sensitivity of the material sought, proposed safeguards, the applicant’s conduct and the likely impact on the children. Criticism of public authorities or the court is not, without more, a proper basis for prior restraint. Nor should an injunction prohibit publication of information wholly unconnected with the family proceedings. An injunction is unnecessary where section 12 already prohibits the conduct and supplies the relevant contempt sanction.

Hampshire County Council sought injunctions against Stephen Green, a commentator who had attended care proceedings concerning two children. He had published material drawn from the proceedings, including extracts from a judgment and a social-work report, after permission to report had been refused. He sought access to extensive case documents and permission to publish articles about the operation of the care system.

The applications followed orders made by the Family Court at Portsmouth and by Baker J requiring removal of published material, return of documents and non-publication of information relating to the proceedings. The central issues were whether Mr Green should receive and publish the requested material, and whether HCC should obtain a wide injunction lasting until the children reached adulthood.

1. Mr Green’s application. The application for access to extensive case papers and permission to publish was refused. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prohibits, without prior permission, publication of information relating to private proceedings under the Children Act 1989, including accounts of hearings, filed documents, extracts, quotations and summaries. The prohibition applies whether or not the material is anonymised.
2. The relevant exercise was a balance of all interests protected by Articles 6, 8 and 10. No interest had automatic precedence. The court had to scrutinise the circumstances intensely and assess the likely impact on the children. Four factors were of magnetic importance: the breadth and sensitivity of the requested material; the absence of limitations or safeguards; Mr Green’s previous breaches of section 12 and non-compliance with court orders; and compelling evidence concerning the effect of publication on the children, particularly A.
3. The court rejected arguments based merely on Mr Green’s status, the critical tone of his articles or his motives. The court was not a censor and could not suppress views because they were critical. Factual inaccuracies might be addressed through defamation proceedings. The public importance of transparency did not outweigh the combined effect of the four factors.
4. HCC’s application. The proposed injunction was refused. It was unnecessary because section 12 already prohibited the relevant publication and provided a contempt sanction, including imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine. In any event, an injunction preventing publication of “any details of the children” would have been impermissibly wide. Information wholly unconnected with the proceedings, including innocuous or positive information, should not be restrained.