Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors

Accredited journalists attending private family proceedings have no automatic right to inspect the court file or underlying documents. Disclosure is permitted only under the court’s discretion and requires a fact-specific balancing exercise between the Article 8 rights to privacy and family life and the Article 10 rights of freedom of expression and receipt of information.

The court must consider the purpose and potential value of disclosure, the nature and sensitivity of the material, the risk of harm to children and third parties, proportionality, and the availability of less intrusive material. A parent’s consent to disclosure on behalf of a child is important but is not determinative. Wholesale access to a family court file will ordinarily be disproportionate, although carefully limited disclosure may be appropriate.

Melanie Newman, a journalist, sought access to the court file and underlying records from public law care proceedings concerning M. The proceedings had resulted in a care order and placement order, but the Court of Appeal set aside the placement order in M (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 240. M was subsequently returned to her mother’s care.

The application was supported by M’s mother and opposed, in scope, by Southampton City Council and M’s Children’s Guardian. Ms Newman sought the material to investigate the local authority’s decision-making and possible systemic issues. The central issue was whether, and to what extent, the court should authorise disclosure of confidential family proceedings material to a journalist who accepted that any later publication would require further permission.

1. Application allowed in part. The court rejected the request for wholesale disclosure of the court file but permitted limited disclosure of specified material, subject to redaction, continuing reporting restrictions and confidentiality obligations.
2. Under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and FPR 2010 r. 29.12, documents and information generated for or used in private children proceedings remain confidential. Attendance by journalists under FPR 2010 r. 27.11 does not confer an automatic right to inspect court papers. The court retains an inherent disclosure jurisdiction, but permission must be justified.
3. The governing approach was the ultimate balancing exercise described in Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 has automatic precedence. The court must focus intensely on the comparative importance of the specific rights claimed, the justification for interference with each right, and proportionality. The value of disclosure in advancing open justice must be balanced against risks to children, family members, professionals and the administration of justice.
4. The application had to be assessed in light of the probable purpose of disclosure: enabling journalistic investigation and possible later publication. The applicant’s professional status and serious purpose engaged Article 10, but did not establish a presumption in favour of access. M’s mother’s consent was relevant, but could not waive M’s independent Article 8 rights or determine the outcome. M’s age, trauma and continuing therapeutic needs meant that her present and future interests required independent protection.
5. Medical records, foster-carer records, contact records, police disclosure, social-care records, child-protection conference material, multi-agency records, professional communications, social-care assessments and witness statements were withheld. The sensitivity of the information, the interests of third parties, and the disproportionate nature of a broad trawl through the papers outweighed the asserted journalistic benefit.
6. Reports and assessments concerning the mother, and where consented to her husband, could be disclosed because they were materially relevant to understanding the decisions to remove and rehabilitate M. They had to be redacted to protect M, M’s father and third parties, and the authors’ identities where necessary. Position statements, case summaries and specified case-management orders could also be disclosed in appropriately redacted form.
7. The local authority and Guardian were directed to undertake necessary redaction. Costs were reserved.

• Court of Appeal: The placement order made in the care proceedings was set aside and the matter was remitted for rehearing in M (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 240. A later appeal concerning reporting restrictions was reported as R (a child) [2019] EWCA Civ 482.
• High Court (Family Division): The present application for disclosure was allowed in part on a targeted and fact-specific basis.