C (A Child) (Care Proceedings – Publication of Judgment), Re
[2024] EWFC 228 (B)
Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors
15 October 2024
[2024] EWFC 306 (B)
Family Court
A judge wrote a report criticizing how a local authority and police handled a child's case. The judge initially kept the names of the authority and police secret to protect the child's privacy. A news organization wanted the names revealed so the public could hold them accountable. The judge said no, because revealing the names would be too risky for the child's privacy, even though it's important for the public to know about failures in the system.
Key Facts
- •Tortoise Media applied to the court to reveal the names of the local authority and police force involved in care proceedings.
- •The initial judgment was highly critical of both the local authority and police, but their names were redacted to protect the child's anonymity.
- •Grandparents supported naming the authorities, while the local authority, police, and Guardian opposed it.
- •The application considered the balance between public interest in transparency and the child's right to privacy.
- •The court considered previous case law on naming local authorities and balancing Article 8 and Article 10 rights.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle and public interest in judgment publication.
Transparency in the Family Courts Publication of Judgments Practice Guidance (19th June 2024), paragraphs 3.1, 5.5.1.
Balancing the child's right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) with the public interest in open justice (Article 10 ECHR).
Newman v Southampton County Council [2021] EWCA Civ 437, Griffiths V Tickle [2021] EWCA Civ 1882
Anonymisation is only permissible where specifically justified; speculative concerns are insufficient.
Transparency in the Family Courts Publication of Judgments Practice Guidance (19th June 2024), paragraph 5.5.
General approach is to include the name of the local authority, unless identification of the child is likely.
Transparency in the Family Courts Publication of Judgments Practice Guidance (19th June 2024), paragraph 12.
Paramountcy principle does not apply to publication decisions, but child welfare is a primary consideration.
Various case law referenced, including Hayden J's comments in A Local Authority v the Mother [2020] EWHC 1162.
Outcomes
Tortoise Media's application to name the local authority and police force was refused.
The court balanced the public interest in transparency and accountability against the risk of jigsaw identification and harm to the child. The risk of identification, particularly given the child's unique circumstances and the small community, outweighed the public interest arguments. The court considered the Guardian's concerns regarding the child's welfare to be paramount.