KRD v PTL

When deciding whether information from private family proceedings may be reported, the court must balance Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention through an intense, fact-specific and proportionate assessment. Neither right has precedence. The children’s best interests are a primary consideration, but they are not paramount and may be outweighed by the cumulative effect of other considerations.

Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 restricts publication of information relating to the proceedings, including evidence, documents and summaries, even where anonymised. Reporting restrictions should protect children from identification, distress and harm, while permitting genuinely proportionate reporting in the public interest. Restrictions must be no wider than necessary.

The mother sought a reporting restriction order preventing identification of the parties’ three children. The father sought relaxation of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 so that he could publish information about the family proceedings and his criticisms of the family justice system.

The parties accepted that an approach similar to the Family Court Transparency Reporting Pilot could be adopted retrospectively. The central issues concerned the persons who could be identified, the documents and other materials that could be shown to a reporter, and the extent to which personal and potentially identifying information about the family could be reported.

1. Statutory framework. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 prohibits publication of information relating to private proceedings concerning children. It covers accounts of what occurred before the judge, documents filed in the proceedings, evidence, submissions, judgments and summaries of those materials. Anonymisation does not remove the prohibition. Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 separately prohibits publication likely to identify a child while the proceedings continue.
2. Convention balance. The court applied the approach in Re S. Articles 8 and 10 have equal status. The court must focus intensely on the comparative importance of the specific rights claimed, consider the justification for restricting each right, and apply proportionality to each.
3. Children’s interests and impact. The children’s best interests were a primary consideration, but not paramount. The court assessed objectively the likely impact of publication, including the risk that the children might recognise themselves or suffer distress or psychological harm. The risk had to be evaluated on the evidence and particular facts, rather than assumed.
4. Reporting arrangements. The court adopted a process broadly analogous to the Transparency Pilot. Independent social workers not currently working with the children could be named, but the local-authority social worker, clinician and individual police officers could not ordinarily be identified. The relevant police force could be named. Reporters could see limited documents, with further material requiring a specific application.
5. Information permitted and prohibited. The mother’s background could be reported only in a limited gist because it was necessary to understand the father’s complaints and the underlying judgments. Information concerning the children’s personal circumstances, sensitive family information and the content of recordings between the father and a child was excluded. The father undertook not to discuss actual or potential reporting with the children.