Key Facts
- •Final hearing in October 2022 regarding child S.
- •Expert evidence provided by Dr. X.
- •Judge's initial judgment (M v F & Anor [2022] EWFC 186) contained queries about Dr. X's evidence.
- •Dr. X objected to the publication of the judgment with their name included.
- •The court considered whether to publish the judgment, whether to grant Dr. X anonymity, and how to deal with publication of reasons.
- •Dr. X raised concerns about physical safety and professional vilification due to the nature of the case and media attention on psychologists in family courts.
- •Dr. X's letter contained extensive criticisms of the judge's judgment.
- •The court considered Dr. X's criticisms and assessed the potential safety risks.
- •The court considered the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.
- •The court reviewed relevant case law, including Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140 and Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47.
Legal Principles
Right to respect for private life (Art 8 ECHR) can extend to professional lives of witnesses; includes procedural rights to fair process.
Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140
In balancing Art 8 and Art 10 rights, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights in the individual case is necessary.
Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47
No presumption for or against anonymity for experts in published judgments; a balancing exercise is required.
Re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47; Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam)
S12 Administration of Justice Act 1960 does not extend to affording anonymity to witnesses or experts.
Kent County Council v B [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam)
Outcomes
To publish both judgments, but with Dr. X anonymized.
Balancing the public interest in open justice with Dr. X's Article 8 rights (safety and well-being), given the specific risks in this case and the nature of Dr. X's response.