Key Facts
- •Application by BBC journalists for transcripts and documents from previous family court proceedings concerning Ms Codsi, who was subject to deprivation of liberty orders as a child.
- •Ms Codsi, now an adult, supports the application and wishes to share her story.
- •The application raises issues of public interest reporting, Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights.
- •The court considered the balance between Ms Codsi's right to privacy and the public interest in transparency of the family courts.
- •The court had to consider Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 and Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 regarding confidentiality in family proceedings.
Legal Principles
Confidentiality in Children Act 1989 proceedings
Section 97, Children Act 1989
Confidentiality in proceedings relating to children's upbringing
Section 12, Administration of Justice Act 1960
Balancing Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights
Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593
Proportionality test in balancing human rights
JXMX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 96
Importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society
Human Rights Act 1998, Section 12(4)
Open justice and public scrutiny of the courts
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Simms and Another [2000] 2 AC 115; Re BBC [2015] AC 588
Duties and responsibilities of the press in relation to Article 10
Financial Times v UK (2010) 50 EHRR 46
Provision of transcripts of proceedings
FPR 2010 r.27.9
Communication of information relating to proceedings
FPR 2010 r.12.73
Outcomes
Granted permission for applicants to receive transcripts of hearings and relevant documents.
Balanced Article 8 and Article 10 rights, finding that the public interest in transparency and Ms Codsi's wish to share her story outweighed privacy concerns. The court also noted the importance of open justice in the family court system, especially concerning the use of DoLS orders and the lack of transparency surrounding the care of vulnerable children.