Tortoise Media v A Local Authority in Wales & Ors
[2024] EWFC 306 (B)
Derbyshire County Council v Shannon Marsden & Ors
21 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1892 (Fam)
High Court
A baby died after being sent home from care. Newspapers wanted to know what happened and asked the judge for the court papers. The judge gave them the papers, but kept the surviving sibling's identity secret. The judge also said it was ok to name the people who made the decision to send the baby home.
Key Facts
- •Finley Boden, a young child, was killed by his parents on 24 December 2020.
- •Finley and his sibling, Child A, were subject to care proceedings.
- •Children were returned to parents after a hearing on 1 October 2020.
- •Parents were subsequently convicted of murder.
- •Three media organizations applied for release of documents relating to care proceedings.
- •Applications concerned the October 1, 2020 ruling, supporting documents, and the identities of Lay Justices and Legal Adviser involved.
Legal Principles
Publication of information about care proceedings is largely prohibited by s.97 of the Children Act 1989 and s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
Children Act 1989, Administration of Justice Act 1960
Rule 12.73 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 governs communication of information relating to private proceedings. Publication requires court permission.
Family Procedure Rules 2010
Balancing exercise between Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of press) under Human Rights Act 1998 is crucial in disclosure decisions.
Human Rights Act 1998
Cases like Re C, Re EC, Re H, and X & Y provide guidance on disclosure in care proceedings, considering factors like child welfare, confidentiality, and public interest.
Re C, Re EC, Re H, X & Y
There's a shift towards greater transparency in the family justice system, but with strict rules to protect anonymity.
Re J, Transparency Pilot
Statutory restrictions primarily protect children's anonymity, not necessarily professionals involved.
Tickle v Herefordshire CC
Lay Justices, as judges, and Legal Advisers integral to decisions, are subject to public accountability.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018, Family Procedure Rules 2010
Outcomes
Media granted access to documents, subject to redactions to protect Child A’s identity.
Significant public interest in understanding Finley’s death and the circumstances leading to the decision to return children to parents, balanced against the need to protect Child A’s privacy.
Media allowed to name the Lay Justices and Legal Adviser involved.
Lay Justices and Legal Advisers, as integral parts of the decision-making process, are subject to public accountability; no compelling reasons were presented to withhold their names.