Tortoise Media Ltd. Case: Balancing Transparency and Privacy Rights in Family Proceedings

Citation: [2024] EWFC 50
Judgment on


The case of Tortoise Media Limited v A Local Authority & Ors represents a noteworthy decision on transparency, reporting restrictions, and the balancing of competing rights within the context of family proceedings. The judgment carefully navigates the complexities surrounding the right to a fair trial, the interests of vulnerable children, freedom of expression under Article 10, respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and public interest in open justice.

Key Facts

The case involved an application by Tortoise Media Ltd to report on ongoing public law proceedings that included sensitive issues relating to the discovery of a baby’s body, parental arrests, and subsequent Children Act proceedings. There was an interplay with a parallel police investigation concerning potential serious criminal charges, which had been prematurely publicised resulting in significant media attention. The local authority’s threshold criteria for the family court were broad, encompassing various familial and protective concerns beyond just the incidents under police investigation. The mother, wishing to waive her right to silence, desired to tell her story publicly before the completion of the criminal investigation or any subsequent proceedings.

The judgment rests on established legal principles, chief among them being the balancing exercise mandated by the Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47. This exercise requires the court to weigh competing rights – neither Article 8 nor Article 10 rights are automatically given precedence. Several key legal principles are applied in this adjudication:

  • Open Justice and Article 10 ECHR: There’s a high value on open justice and public scrutiny of court processes. Article 10 protects freedom of expression, an essential principle in a democratic society, with particular importance given to journalistic freedom to ensure informed debate on matters of public interest.

  • Article 8 ECHR and Private Life: Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life. This includes an individual’s autonomy rights, such as in Re Roddy [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), and the implications it has for disclosing personal stories.

  • Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998: This section calls for special regard to freedom of expression when journalistic material is in question, alongside the consideration of privacy codes.

  • Section 97(2) of the Children Act and Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960: These sections restrict the publication of certain details from private family court proceedings, but s.97(4) gives courts discretion to permit publication if required by ECHR rights.

  • Proportionality Test: As in all cases where ECHR rights are engaged, the judgment applies a proportionality test to assess whether restrictions on each right are justified.


The court granted an application for the mother to speak to accredited reporters and for disclosure of certain court documents to facilitate accurate press reporting. However, it prohibited the publication of information that would lead to the identification of the children until after the conclusion of the police investigation or any criminal proceedings.

The court denied the request for immediate reporting, underscoring the significant weight of maintaining the integrity of the investigatory process in criminal proceedings. It allowed for the publication of the parents’ names but disallowed the naming of any other family member or the children, considering the risk of ‘jigsaw identification’, given that previous publications had already made the parents’ identities public.


The verdict in Tortoise Media Limited v A Local Authority & Ors is emblematic of the delicate balance courts must maintain between transparency and privacy, especially where the welfare of children is concerned. It demonstrates the courts’ commitment to uphold both open justice and the protection of individual rights to privacy, particularly in cases with wider public significance and impact. The outcome reiterates the legal principle that neither Article 8 nor Article 10 rights are absolute, and each case demands a careful, tailored analysis to determine the proportionate and justified balance of rights and interests at stake.

Related Summaries