CHF & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Newick Church of England Primary School & Anor

An anonymity order protecting children from disclosure of details likely to identify them may, depending on the facts, require the parents’ names also to be withheld. Naming parents is prohibited where it would identify the children; the order may need clarification rather than extension. The court must balance the children’s Article 8 privacy rights with open justice and the public interest in identifying litigants. Information already in the public domain is a factor, not an absolute bar, and minimal publication through court listings may carry little weight. Orders must be clear and certain in effect. The result is fact-sensitive: adult litigants do not ordinarily receive anonymity merely because proceedings concern children.

The appellants brought judicial review proceedings concerning sensitive allegations involving children at a primary school. Linden J made an anonymity order protecting the children and other children referred to in the evidence, but the appellants remained named. At a later hearing, the appellants sought protection for their own names after the deputy judge stated that the existing order did not extend beyond the children. The deputy judge refused the request, considering that extending anonymity would be futile because some information was already public. Permission to appeal was granted on the anonymity issue. The central questions were whether the existing order already prohibited naming the parents where that would identify the children, and how the competing privacy and open-justice interests should be balanced.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal discharged paragraph 1 of the deputy judge’s order and substituted an amended anonymity order. The amended order prohibited disclosure of details, including either parent’s name or address, that might lead to identification of the children, and permitted the parents to be referred to as CHF and CHM.
2. The original order was reasonable. The proceedings directly concerned sensitive matters affecting young children, and protecting their identities was a proper derogation from open justice. Although the children were neither parties nor witnesses, the court’s power and obligation to protect their Article 8 rights was not confined by CPR rule 39.2(4). Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1939 supplied a relevant statutory power alongside the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
3. Properly understood, the order already prohibited disclosure of details leading to identification of the children. Because the respondents localised the case and the family surname was distinctive, naming the parents would inexorably identify the children. The parents’ request was therefore for clarification, not an extension. Court orders should, so far as possible, have clear meaning and certain effect.
4. The deputy judge also erred by treating prior publication as making anonymity futile. Information in the public domain is a factor, but not an absolute bar to relief, as illustrated by PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26; [2016] 1 AC 1081. The limited appearance of the parents’ names in court listings carried little weight.
5. On the fresh balancing exercise, applying JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42 and Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593, the children’s Article 8 privacy rights were balanced against Article 10 and the public interest in open justice and party transparency. No specific countervailing public interest justified publication which would identify the children. The decision did not establish that adult litigants in every public-law case involving children should be anonymised; the assessment remains fact-sensitive.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal on the anonymity issue, discharged the deputy judge’s order refusing protection, and substituted an amended anonymity order.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), on 9 October 2020, refused the appellants’ request to extend the anonymity order, while maintaining protection for the children.