A Father v A Mother & Anor

Accredited journalists may be permitted to report ongoing private family proceedings where transparency serves a significant public interest, even if the proceedings have not concluded. Reporting must preserve the anonymity of the child and family members unless the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 justify disclosure. The court must apply an intense, case-specific balancing exercise, giving neither right automatic precedence and considering the justification and proportionality of restricting each right. The court may permit publication of the country in which an abducted child is living while withholding information capable of identifying the child or individuals involved. Naming individual professionals may be refused where disclosure risks disproportionate interference with their private lives or the proper conduct of the proceedings.

Three accredited journalists applied for permission to report private wardship and private law proceedings concerning a child who had been taken by her mother to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and had remained there despite repeated return orders. The parties broadly agreed that reporting should be permitted, subject to anonymity and restrictions on identifying information. One journalist sought permission to name individual Cafcass and police officers.

The application required the court to determine the scope of a transparency order, the effect of Children Act 1989, s 97, and the balance between privacy under Article 8 and freedom of expression under Article 10.

1. Reporting permitted. The application was granted in part. Reporting of the proceedings was permitted although the proceedings had not concluded, because progress was slow and resolution could not be predicted. The transparency order was to operate broadly in accordance with the reporting-pilot model.
2. Anonymity. The identity of the child, the parties and family members was to remain protected. The court could nevertheless permit publication of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a significant and publicly important feature of the case, notwithstanding the possibility of identification within the local community.
3. Balancing Articles 8 and 10. Neither right had automatic precedence. The court applied the ultimate balancing test described in Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47: an intense focus on the comparative importance of the rights claimed, consideration of the justification for restricting each right, and proportionality. The proposed order already permitted reporting of the court’s processes, the parties’ allegations, professional conduct, the judgments and the difficulties caused by international abduction.
4. Professional identities. The application to name individual Cafcass Guardians was refused on an interim basis. The likely interference with their private and family lives was disproportionate to the additional public benefit. Disclosure might also encourage the publication of serious and unproven allegations and impede the Guardian’s ability to act in the child’s best interests. The individual police officer was likewise not to be named pending further consideration, although the police force could be identified.
5. Statutory protection. The court treated Children Act 1989, s 97(2), as capable of dispensation where Convention rights required it, consistently with Re Webster; Norfolk County Council v Webster and Others [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam) and Griffiths v Tickle [2021] EWHC 3365. Any publication of the maternal grandfather’s name in related criminal proceedings was to be referred urgently to the court because of the risk of jigsaw identification.