T (A Child) (No.2) (Transparency: Publication of the Party’s Names), Re
[2024] EWHC 161 (Fam)
M v F & Anor
28 February 2023
[2023] EWFC 53 (B)
Family Court
A judge wrote a decision about a case involving a child. An expert who helped with the case, Dr. X, worried about being named in the public decision because of safety concerns. The judge decided to make the decision public but to keep Dr. X's identity secret to protect them.
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.