Sanchia Berg & Anor v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Ors
[2024] EWFC 92
Louise Tickle v Father & Ors
5 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam)
High Court
A journalist wanted to write about problems in the Family Court, not a specific case. A judge said no, but a higher court said yes because the journalist promised to keep everyone's names secret and it's important for people to know about problems in the court system.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HHJ Haigh's decision to adjourn an application by journalist Louise Tickle to report Family Court proceedings.
- •Proceedings concern a child under 5 (XX) involving allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation.
- •Ms Tickle sought to report procedural and systemic issues (lack of legal aid, court delays) observed during the hearing, not the case's substantive details.
- •The judge adjourned the application due to concerns about incomplete context and potential for misleading reporting.
- •Ms Tickle proposed stringent anonymity measures to protect the child and family.
Legal Principles
Balance between Article 10 ECHR (right to report) and Article 8 ECHR (right to privacy).
European Convention on Human Rights
Open justice principle, subject to exceptions to protect private and family life, particularly children's rights.
Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1882
'Necessary' means necessary, lying between 'indispensable' and 'useful/reasonable/desirable'.
Re H-L (a child) [2013] EWCA Civ 655
Child's best interests are a primary consideration but can be outweighed by other factors.
Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)
Court's power to relax or add to reporting restrictions; intense focus on comparative importance of rights.
Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47
Public interest in reporting on Family Court workings and systemic issues.
Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts (20 October 2021)
Press can attend hearings under FPR 27.11(2)(f), but can be excluded if necessary under FPR 27.11(3).
Family Procedure Rules 2010
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Ms Tickle's application to report granted.
Judge failed to properly balance Article 8 and 10 rights. Ms Tickle's proposed restrictions eliminated risk of child identification; strong public interest in reporting systemic issues outweighed any potential prejudice.