Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors

Open justice applies fully to family proceedings, subject to closely defined statutory and common law exceptions. A judge should ordinarily be identified even when sitting in private.

An order anonymising a judge requires specific and compelling evidence of a grave risk engaging Convention rights. The court must also be satisfied that security measures cannot adequately address the risk and that the circumstances exceptionally justify overriding open justice. Generic risks, judicial experience and speculation do not suffice.

A court contemplating a reporting restriction of its own motion should ordinarily obtain evidence and submissions first. Judicial decisions must rest on law and evidence, and courts must respect the media’s essential role in scrutinising the administration of justice.

Historic care and private family proceedings had concerned Sara Sharif and members of her family. Following her murder and the subsequent criminal proceedings, journalists and media organisations obtained permission to inspect and report numerous documents from those proceedings.

Williams J nevertheless prohibited publication of the names of three judges who had conducted the historic proceedings. Nobody had requested judicial anonymity, and the judge initially made the order without evidence, submissions or advance notice. His later decision was reported at [2024] EWHC 3330 (Fam).

The journalists and media organisations appealed. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to anonymise the judges, whether the procedure was irregular, and whether the judge’s remarks demonstrated unfairness towards the media.

1. The appeals were allowed. The prohibition on publishing the historic judges’ names was to be removed after seven days, allowing HMCTS time to implement suitable protective measures. Any further hearings were remitted to a different Family Division judge.

2. The open justice principle applies to family proceedings. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97 of the Children Act 1989 provide defined protection for proceedings concerning children. They do not displace open justice or establish a separate system of “shielded justice”. Judges occupy a special public position and must ordinarily be named, including when sitting in private.

3. Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 conferred a broad power to grant an injunction, but no application, cause of action or other adequate basis for an injunction existed. The only realistic jurisdictional foundation was section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, possibly together with section 37. That foundation required evidence capable of engaging articles 2, 3 or 8 of the Convention.

4. Article 8 may be engaged where publication would seriously interfere with private life or create a real risk to physical or psychological integrity. This is a high threshold. The judge had no specific evidence of threats or danger to the historic judges and could not establish jurisdiction by drawing on his own experiences or imagining generic social-media risks.

5. Judicial anonymity would be exceptionally difficult to justify. It would require specific compelling evidence of risk, proof that other security measures could not adequately address that risk, and risks so grave that they exceptionally outweighed open justice. Those requirements were not met. Later generic threats and concerns did not change the result because protective security measures remained available.

6. The procedure was also irregular. If the judge had remained in genuine doubt, he should have obtained evidence and submissions before imposing anonymity. Although his immediate reasons were adequate in outline, the order should not have been made without prior participation by those affected.

7. Permission was granted on the additional unfairness ground. The judge’s accusations, sarcasm, anecdotes and reliance on personal experience were inappropriate. Courts decide cases on law and evidence, not judicial speculation. His treatment of the journalists and Channel 4 was unfair, although it was unnecessary to determine actual or apparent bias.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2025] EWCA Civ 42, unanimously allowed the appeals, set aside the provision anonymising the historic judges after a seven-day stay, and remitted further hearings to a different Family Division judge.
2. High Court, Family Division: Williams J ordered that the historic judges should not be identified and maintained that decision in [2024] EWHC 3330 (Fam), pending later reconsideration after enquiries and representations.