Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v Namiq & Anor

In an application to restrict publication of treating clinicians’ names, the court must balance open justice and freedom of expression against the professionals’ Article 8 privacy rights and the public interest in enabling them to provide care without intimidation or disruption. Transparency does not require the identification of every professional involved in a sensitive family case. Treating clinicians are materially different from experts who choose to participate in litigation: their involvement arises from their clinical role and does not waive their privacy rights. A reporting restriction order may cover a class of treating staff where individual evidence from each person would be disproportionate and a reasonable assumption supports protection. The outcome remains fact-specific.

The Trust sought continuation of a reporting restriction order preventing publication of the names of clinicians and nursing staff involved in treating a critically ill child. MacDonald J had granted an interim order on 19 December 2019. The parents opposed continuation, the Guardian did not oppose it, and the Press Association resisted the order under Article 10.

The proceedings were heard in public and the judgment, the child’s name and the hospital’s name could be published. The issue was confined to whether the treating healthcare professionals, including one clinician who had provided an independent clinical opinion, should remain anonymous.

1. Order continued. The reporting restriction order was extended in the same terms to cover the treating clinical and nursing staff.
2. The court recognised the critical importance of open justice, transparency and press freedom under Article 10. Those interests were substantially protected because the hearing and judgment were public and the child and hospital were identified. Anonymising the professionals therefore caused only minimal impairment to transparency in the circumstances.
3. The court balanced those interests against the professionals’ Article 8 rights and the public interest in ensuring that staff caring for critically ill children could work without fear of hostile publicity, disruption or effects on their families and other patients. The absence of existing harassment did not require the court to wait until harm occurred.
4. The court distinguished treating clinicians from experts, lawyers and judges. Treating clinicians attend court because their treatment of the patient is relevant, not because they freely choose forensic participation. Their clinical role does not amount to a waiver of privacy. The court expressly differed from the approach in A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam) on this issue, while recognising that each application is fact-specific.
5. It was unnecessary and disproportionate to obtain evidence from each of approximately 360 staff members. A reasonable assumption that treating staff would wish their privacy protected was sufficient. Any person wishing to be named could raise the matter with the Trust and, if necessary, apply to the court.