Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors

This Court of Appeal allowed the appeals against a Family Division judge’s oral order anonymising three circuit judges who had decided historic family proceedings arising from the Sara Sharif case. The court held that anonymisation of judges is an exceptional step and, in the absence of specific evidence showing that Articles 2, 3 or 8 ECHR were engaged or that other security measures were insufficient, the judge lacked jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998 (section 6) to make such an order of his own motion. The court also found procedural irregularity in the judge’s failure to seek submissions or evidence before making the anonymity order and unfairness in parts of his judgment criticising the media. The anonymity provision was removed, subject to a 7-day period for HMCTS to consider protective measures, and the matter is to be remitted for further consideration by a different Family Division judge.

Background: The appeals arose from applications by journalists and media organisations for documents and permission to report aspects of historic family and private law proceedings concerning Sara Sharif and her siblings. The Family Division judge (Williams J) made an Order on 11 December 2024 allowing disclosure of many documents but including an anonymisation clause at [15(g)] preventing publication of the names of the social workers, experts and the three historic judges (save for the presiding judge). No party had asked that the historic judges be anonymised and there was no evidence before the judge when he made the anonymisation provision.

Procedural posture: The journalists appealed. Written submissions were invited after the oral order; Williams J delivered reasons on 18 December 2024. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted and the appeals were heard on 14–15 January 2025.

Nature of the relief sought: The media sought removal of the anonymisation of judges and the right to publish the names of the historic judges; the Local Authority sought wardship orders and other family relief in the underlying proceedings (the appeal concerned reporting restrictions/disclosure orders arising from those proceedings).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the court has jurisdiction to prohibit publication of the names of judges and, if so, on what legal basis;
• Whether the judge’s anonymisation of the historic judges was procedurally irregular because it was made without submissions, evidence or adequate reasons;
• Whether parts of the judge’s later reasoned judgment demonstrated unfairness or bias against the media sufficient to warrant intervention.

Court’s reasoning:

• Jurisdiction: The Court of Appeal concluded the only realistic legal foundation for anonymising judges in the absence of any other cause of action was section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (read with the court’s injunctive jurisdiction under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981). Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97 of the Children Act 1989 give privacy to certain child-related proceedings but do not displace the fundamental principle that judges should be named; indeed orders routinely name the judge. Anonymity of a judge is an exceptional measure which ordinarily requires compelling, case‑specific evidence that Articles 2, 3 or 8 are engaged and that other protective measures are inadequate. The judge had no such evidence when he made the anonymity order and therefore lacked jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges.
• Article 8 threshold and balancing: The court reiterated that the threshold for engaging Article 8 in this context is high: there must be evidence of a real and serious risk to private or physical integrity. Generic judicial experience or speculation about social media hostility is insufficient to displace the open justice presumption. Where a court considers anonymity might be necessary, it must carry out a Re S-style balancing exercise on a proper evidential foundation.
• Procedural fairness and bias: The judge should have sought submissions and evidence before ordering anonymisation of the judges. The Court of Appeal found aspects of the judge’s reasoning and language in his December judgment were excessive and unfair to the journalists, and gave permission to rely on that additional ground of appeal.

Result: The Court allowed the appeals primarily on the jurisdiction point, also on procedural irregularity and unfairness. The anonymity provision was removed; the historic judges are to be given seven days from the date of the Court of Appeal judgment to allow HMCTS to implement protective measures before publication of their names. The matter is remitted to a different Family Division judge for further consideration where appropriate.

Appeal allowed. The Court held that anonymisation of judges is an exceptional interference with the principle of open justice and, in this case, the Family Division judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges in the absence of specific evidence engaging Articles 2, 3 or 8 ECHR or showing other protective measures were inadequate. The Court also found procedural irregularity in making the anonymity order without inviting submissions or evidence and unfairness in parts of the judge’s judgment; the anonymity provision was removed, with a 7-day period for HMCTS to consider protective measures, and the matter remitted to another Family Division judge for further consideration if required.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (Williams J) [2024] EWHC 3330 (Fam). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted (permission given 19 December 2024 for the journalists; the Media Parties were also granted permission). The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal on 14–15 January 2025 and determined by the Court of Appeal on 24 January 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 42).