Al M (Publication)

Applications to publish judgments and permit reporting in private family proceedings require an intense, fact-specific balancing exercise between the relevant rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. No right has automatic precedence. The child’s welfare is a primary consideration, but it is not paramount and does not operate as a trump card. Where publication is necessary to correct a materially false public narrative, protect private and family life, and serve a strong public interest in open justice, publication may be authorised despite likely adverse publicity. Any relaxation of identification restrictions should be confined to what is necessary. Other identifying information, such as images, address and school, may remain prohibited.

The judgment concerned ongoing wardship proceedings about two children. The father opposed publication of an earlier fact-finding judgment and an assurances and waiver judgment, together with reporting of the hearings, identification of the children, and publication of preparatory documents. The mother, the children’s guardian and media organisations supported publication in differing respects.

The court had previously made serious findings concerning the father and had considered assurances and a waiver of immunity. The central issues were whether the judgments and related court reporting should be released before the final welfare hearing, whether the children could be identified by name, age and gender, and what continuing restrictions were required.

1. Balancing exercise. The court applied the ultimate balancing test under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 had precedence. The court had to focus intensely on the comparative importance of the specific rights claimed, examine the justification for interfering with each right, and apply proportionality.
2. Welfare and publication. The children’s welfare was a primary consideration, but it was neither paramount nor determinative. In this exceptional case, substantial information was already public, much of it was false, and the mother was suffering significant social and psychological consequences. Publication of the judgments was necessary both to correct the public narrative and to meet the private and family life needs of the mother and children. The Article 10 public interest was also exceptionally strong because the findings concerned matters of international human rights importance.
3. Orders for publication. Immediate publication of both judgments was permitted. There was no principled distinction between them, and publication of the assurances and waiver judgment also assisted the practical protection of the children and the orderly operation of security services. The father’s proposed redaction was refused.
4. Reporting and documents. Journalists who had attended the hearings were permitted to report what they had observed, but only insofar as it related directly to the fact-finding judgment or the analysis of the assurances and waiver. Publication of the preparatory working documents was refused because it was unnecessary and risked confusion.
5. Identification. The children could be identified by name, age and gender because withholding those details would be artificial and would weaken the protective purpose of publication. The prohibition under Children Act 1989, s 97(2), remained in force for images, addresses and schools. The order was stayed for seven days to allow consideration of an appeal.