Key Facts
- •15-year-old PP, with complex physical and psychological needs, required a C-section.
- •PP lacked Gillick competence; parental consent was unreliable.
- •Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust sought court authorization for the surgery and a reporting restriction order (RRO).
- •PA Media applied to vary the RRO to allow naming the Trust and local authority.
- •The court initially granted a blanket RRO until PP's discharge.
- •Care proceedings were commenced for PP's baby.
- •The Trust did not oppose being named.
Legal Principles
Open justice is the general rule, but exceptions exist to protect children's interests.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
Anonymisation of children in family proceedings is the general rule, to be avoided only in exceptional circumstances.
Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47; A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25
Anonymisation of professionals should be decided by reference to the normal rules for derogating from open justice, balancing freedom of expression against the need to protect the child.
Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47; A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25; Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam)
Routine anonymisation in financial remedy cases is likely unlawful; litigants have no automatic entitlement to anonymity.
Gallagher v Gallagher (No.1) (Reporting Restrictions) [2022] EWFC 52; McPherson v McPherson [1936] AC 177; Edmonton Journal v Alberta [1989] 2 SCR 1326
Outcomes
PA Media's application to name the Trust was granted.
Naming the Trust would not significantly increase the risk of PP's identification and serves the public interest.
PA Media's application to name the local authority was refused.
This decision should be made in the concurrent care proceedings where all parties can be heard.
Partial disclosure allowed regarding PP's age, pregnancy, involvement with social services, and brain injury.
This balances the need for transparency with PP's anonymity.