T (Children: Publication of Judgment), Re
[2024] EWCA Civ 697
T (A Child) (No.2) (Transparency: Publication of the Party’s Names), Re
2 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 161 (Fam)
High Court
A long family court case ended. The judge decided to publish it, but won't name the kids to protect their privacy. The parents' names will be used because it's important for people to understand how the court handles difficult family situations. The kids, when older, will be able to read it and understand what happened.
Key Facts
- •Case concerns publication of a family court judgment involving a 15-year-old child (T) and his older sister (S).
- •Proceeding had been ongoing for 10 years, with numerous hearings.
- •Parties initially agreed to anonymised publication.
- •The question was whether to publish an un-anonymised version naming the parties upon T turning 18.
- •The children expressed their wish for no publication at all.
- •Mother opposes un-anonymised publication, Father supports it.
- •The judge considered Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle; public has a right to know court proceedings.
Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2021] EWCA 1882
Balancing exercise between Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR.
Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47
Children Act 1989, section 97(2) prohibits publication of information identifying children involved in proceedings; this prohibition ends when proceedings conclude.
Children Act 1989, Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878
Child's best interests are a primary consideration, but can be outweighed by other factors.
Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam)
Outcomes
The judgment will be published naming the parents but not the children (T and S), who will be identified by initials.
The judge balanced the public interest in transparency and the children's right to privacy. The public interest in understanding the court's work in complex cases, particularly the impact of one parent's behaviour, outweighed the children's concerns, especially given that they will have access to a balanced account of the proceedings when they are adults. The children's wishes were given considerable weight, but not deemed to outweigh public interest.