Sanchia Berg & Anor v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Ors
[2024] EWFC 92
KRD v PTL
16 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1952 (Fam)
High Court
A dad wanted to share details of his court case to show how the family court system failed him. The judge said some things could be shared to help people understand what happened, but kept much secret to protect his kids' privacy and avoid causing them harm. It's like sharing some parts of a story but hiding the ending so you don't spoil it for others.
Key Facts
- •Application concerning reporting restrictions on a Family Court matter involving three children.
- •Applicant Mother seeks a Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) to prevent identification of children and parents.
- •Respondent Father seeks to relax Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA) to disclose information.
- •Extensive, highly conflictual litigation spanning several years, culminating in a decision denying the Father direct contact with the children.
- •Father wishes to publish information alleging failures in the family justice system.
- •Court adopts an approach similar to the Family Court Transparency Pilot, balancing Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal Principles
Statutory restrictions on publishing information about children's proceedings (Section 12 AJA, Section 97(2) Children Act 1989).
Section 12 AJA, Section 97(2) Children Act 1989
Interpretation of Section 12 AJA regarding permissible and prohibited publications (Re B [2004], A v Ward [2010]).
Re B [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam); A v Ward [2010] 1 FLR 1497
Balancing Articles 8 and 10 ECHR (right to privacy and freedom of expression). The interests of the child are a primary consideration, but not paramount.
Re S [2004] UKHL 47; ZH v Tanzania [2011] UKSC 4; In re J (A Child) (Reporting Restrictions: Internet: Video) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)
Objective assessment of the impact of publication on a child, considering the evidence (Griffiths v Tickle [2021]).
Griffiths v Tickle [2021] EWCA Civ 1882
Outcomes
Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) granted, largely mirroring the Family Court Transparency Pilot approach.
Balances the father's right to freedom of expression with the children's right to privacy and protection from harm.
Independent social worker can be named; local authority social worker and GP cannot be named without further application.
Consistent with Transparency Pilot Guidance; considers independence and potential harm.
Reporter can access specified court documents (transcripts, judgments) subject to judicial approval; other documents require further application.
Balances the need for meaningful reporting with the protection of privacy.
Specific identifying information (Mother's heritage, except broad geographic origin) restricted to protect children's anonymity.
Prevents potential identification of children.
Highly personal information about the family is prohibited from publication.
Minimal public interest outweighs potential harm to the children.
Gist of the mother's past substance abuse allowed; specific details prohibited.
Necessary to understand the father's arguments and the court's reasoning, while balancing the mother's privacy.
Children's personal circumstances and the content of audio recordings are prohibited from publication.
Children's Article 8 rights outweigh any Article 10 considerations.
Father gives undertaking not to discuss potential publications with children.
Protects children from potential harm.