Louise Tickle & Ors v Surrey County Council & Ors

Applications to disclose and publish material from shielded family proceedings require the court to conduct an ultimate balancing exercise between the specific Article 8 and Article 10 rights engaged. Neither right has automatic precedence. The court must assess proportionality by reference to the facts, evidence, risks and context, including risks that may be inferred from experience.

Following convictions for Sara Sharif’s murder, the public interest in scrutinising historic safeguarding and family-court decision-making was compelling. It justified substantial disclosure and publication, subject to redactions and anonymity protections. The same public interest did not justify naming social workers, guardians, experts or judges where there was a clear and imminent risk of serious interference with their Article 8 rights and potentially their physical safety.

Eleven media applicants sought disclosure of papers from historic family proceedings concerning Sara Sharif and permission to publish information from them. They also sought relaxation of the statutory reporting restrictions under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, including permission to identify third parties and judges involved in the historic proceedings.

The applications followed an earlier judgment in June 2024, which had adjourned the balancing exercise pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. After Sara’s father and step-mother were convicted of her murder, the court considered whether the changed circumstances justified further disclosure and publication, and how the competing rights of the children, third parties and media should be balanced.

1. Disclosure and publication. The applications were granted in substantial part. The convictions and evidence of prolonged abuse created compelling public interest in understanding how Sara came to be placed with her father, the effectiveness of safeguarding and family-court processes, and the local authority’s assessment of risk. That public interest outweighed the children’s Article 8 rights to the extent permitted by the redaction and anonymity schemes.
2. The court was required to apply the ultimate balancing exercise. Neither Article 8 nor Article 10 had presumptive priority. The court had to focus intensely on the specific rights claimed, consider the justification for interference with each right, and apply proportionality to each. Risk could be assessed by reference to established facts, inference, experience and predictive evaluation.
3. The disclosure and publication permitted were confined principally to the adults, allegations, safeguarding processes, risk assessments and placement decisions. Sensitive medical, developmental and relational information about the children, and information capable of identifying them or unrelated children, was to be redacted or withheld.
4. Naming third parties and judges. There was no automatic rule that social workers, guardians, experts or judges must be named in family proceedings. The usual expectation that a judge’s name will be public, reflected in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, remained subject to case-specific proportionality assessment. The exceptionality of withholding a judge’s name did not remove the court’s discretion to do so.
5. The exceptional notoriety of the case created a clear and imminent risk of serious abuse, threats and possible physical harm if the judges and other professionals were identified. The public interest lay principally in scrutinising systems, practices and resources, rather than attributing responsibility to individuals who appeared to have acted within the law and professional practice applicable at the time. The Article 8 rights of the third parties and judges therefore outweighed the residual Article 10 interest in naming them.
6. The press could not report on the continuing wardship proceedings or receive further evidence from them without further order. The matter was listed for reconsideration in March 2025, after affected individuals had been notified and given an opportunity to make representations.

The judgment records that an earlier June 2024 judgment had adjourned the applications pending the criminal trial. It also records an outstanding application for permission to appeal concerning the naming of judges. The present decision was made at first instance in the High Court Family Division.