A Local Authority v A Mother & Ors

When deciding whether to permit reporting in care proceedings, the court must adopt a structured Convention analysis. It must identify the interference prescribed by law, the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the restriction is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. The child’s anonymity remains paramount under Children Act 1989, section 97(2), but naming a public hospital is not automatically prohibited. The assessment is fact-specific. A limited risk that persons already connected with the child may identify them does not necessarily outweigh the public interest in reporting the family court’s approach to fabricated or induced illness. Reporting concerning the court’s handling of such allegations falls within the open justice principles applicable to the family justice system. Speculative demonstrations, possible intervention by a hospital, or an early police investigation may be insufficient to justify withholding the hospital’s name.

The proceedings concerned a Transparency Order sought by The Sunday Times in care proceedings involving allegations of fabricated or induced illness. The newspaper sought permission to name Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust and to report that the child received treatment via medical lines.

The parents and Children’s Guardian supported the application. The Local Authority and the Trust opposed naming the Trust, relying principally on the risk of jigsaw identification, possible harm to the child’s interests and the parent-hospital relationship, possible intervention by the Trust, demonstrations, the scope of open justice, and an ongoing police investigation. The central issue was whether the Article 8 and Article 10 rights were properly balanced while preserving the child’s anonymity.

1. Application granted. The Trust could be named in reporting, and reference could be made to treatment via lines.
2. The court applied the structured approach identified in Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15. The statutory restrictions constituted an interference prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the child and their anonymity. The decisive question was whether the restrictions were necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. The balancing exercise engaged Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.
3. There was substantial public interest in reporting fabricated or induced illness, the relevant professional Guidelines, the way allegations were tested by the family court, and their effect on parents. The Trust’s involvement in the Guidelines and its treatment of seriously ill children added weight to the Article 10 side of the balance.
4. Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 prohibited publication likely to identify the child. However, on the facts, naming a very large children’s hospital created only a limited risk of jigsaw identification. The general reader was unlikely to identify the child. The possibility that parents, carers or professionals might identify or speculate about the child did not, by itself, justify refusing the order, consistently with Re B [2004] EWHC 411.
5. The likely effect on the existing parent-hospital relationship was limited because the allegations had already caused substantial strain. The child would in any event need to be told, at an appropriate age, about the proceedings and restrictions on contact. Possible intervention by the Trust was a case-management matter and did not justify delay.
6. The reporting concerned the family court’s approach to alleged fabricated or induced illness and therefore fell within the open justice principles associated with Dring. It was not confined to scrutiny of hospital or local-authority operations, so the limiting reasoning in Re HMP [2025] EWCA Civ 824 did not apply. The risk of demonstrations was speculative, and naming the Trust would not interfere with the early police investigation.