Chapter Seventeen – Reporting the Family Courts – UK Media Law Pocketbook Second Edition

UK Media Law Pocketbook Second Edition 30th November 2022

By Tim Crook

Online Chapter

The Family court system in England and Wales operates mainly in private hearings with complex reporting restrictions and uneven access for journalists.

However, developments from 2021 suggest significant attempts are being made to improve transparency and openness, and enable much more reporting.

This chapter explains the media law on access and how journalists are able to report the outcome of cases and challenge the stringent limitations on reporting.

The content and multimedia resources for this online chapter are under continuing construction and development.

If you are reading and accessing this publication as an e-book such as on the VitalSource platform, please be advised that it is Routledge policy for clickthrough to reach the home page only. However, copying and pasting the url into the address bar of a separate page on your browser usually reaches the full YouTube, Soundcloud and online links.

The companion website pages will contain all of the printed and e-book’s links with accurate click-through and copy and paste properties. Best endeavours will be made to audit, correct and update the links every six months.

The Family Courts are the most difficult to cover from the point of view of Open Justice, yet they process some of the most devastating legal interventions in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every year which are life-changing and of immense public interest;
There are over 200,000 cases a year being heard and these include local authority interventions to protect children, parental disputes over the upbringing of children and forced marriage protection. Public access is not allowed, accredited journalists may attend (usually after exhuastive and initially awkward negotiation) but when they are there, they find that reporting restrictions mean that it is usually impossible to provide a meaningful journalistic narrative;
The Open Justice deficit has been recognised by Family Division judges largely because the secrecy has been undermining public confidence in a system of law where many litigants have to represent themselves because of the limitations of legal aid support. They have been trying to overcome the fact that when a court sits in private dealing with matters to do with children, it is a contempt of court to publish any information about those proceedings. Journalists permitted to attend have to negotiate quite complex hurdles with the judges on what they could report if they have identified something of acute public interest;
Only around 200 Family Court rulings are made public each year which is subsantially less than a hoped for 10 per cent target. When they are, they are usually heavily redacted. Two pieces of legislation- Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and Section 97 of the Children Act 1989 combind with the strict privacy requirements engaged by the 2002 Adoption and Children Act operate as a legal vice substantially restricting the opportunity to report cases which involve children. (Section 12 Administration of Justice Act-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/65/section/12 and Section 97 Children Act 1989-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/97/2013-04-01 and Section 123 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/123);
A pilot project in three family court centres (Cardiff, Carlisle and Leeds) is taking place from 30th January 2023 where journalists and bloggers who attend will be able to write about the cases, subject to a very strict transparency order that will ensure children are not identified;
Journalists taking part include Sanchia Berg of the BBC and Louise Tickle, a respected freelance journalist who specialises in reporting family law court cases. (See: ‘Family Court reporting pilot courts’- https://transparencyproject.org.uk/family-court-reporting-pilot-courts/) They have to comply with a guidance briefing and a Template Transparency Order agreed by the President of the Family Division Rt Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane. (See: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Reporting-Pilot-Guidance-26-1-23.pdf and ‘Message from the President of the Family Division: Reporting Pilot in the Family Court’- https://www.judiciary.uk/message-from-the-president-of-the-family-division-reporting-pilot-in-the-family-court/);
On 25th January 2023, six days before the pilot project of reporting in the Family Division was to start, Mr Justice Poole issued a pioneering ruling on a transparency order at the Family High Court in Leeds in a complex though high public interest case that merits reporting in the media. The judge explained there were: ‘three public family law applications brought separately by three different Local Authorities concerning three previously unconnected families living in different parts of Yorkshire..heard together’ and families referred to as ‘Family R, Family S, and Family T.’ He explained the forthcoming hearing concerns allegations that the mother in each family has fabricated or induced illness in one child of each family.’ (See: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2023/9.html);
Mr Justice Poole said: ‘I have decided to publish this judgment because it may be helpful to other judges and parties in the pilot courts’ and he said he had sought to achieve an appropriate balance of Article 8 and Article 10 Convention rights in accordance with the principles set out in Re S and Griffiths v Tickle’;
Re S from 2004 has been analysed in detail in the update briefings for Chapters 1 and 20. It is binding authority on the balance between Family Law interests in Article 8 and Open Justice interests in covering criminal proceedings under Article 10. (See: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/47.html). Lord Steyn decided that the open justice interests of reporting the identity of a mother accused of the murder of her child in a criminal trial outweighed the family law privacy interests of her other living child. The Court of Appeal ruling in Griffiths v Tickle 2021, as explained in Chapter 5, permitted the reporting of the most serious allegations against a former minister and member of parliament in a family law dispute and with the identification of the parties. (See https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1882.html);
The pilot Family Law transparency reporting scheme has been accompanied by the development of an extensive online ‘Family Justice’ resource for journalists compiled by Family Law journalist expert Louise Tickle and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (See: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/family-justice);
It is worth bearing in mind that the moves towards more open reporting of family law cases does not provide any immunity to journalists and their publishers who may in good faith inadvertently include detail in their reports which breaches current statutory legal protection; particularly the jigsaw identification of children and families.
Mr Justice Poole explained in his 25th January ruling in Re BR and others (Transparency order) at paragraph 43: ‘The reporting pilot places a heavy responsibility on pilot reporters. It would be over- burdensome on judges, and objectionable in principle, for the court to give detailed directions to pilot reporters about the content of their reports. Pilot reporters must use their own professional judgment to ensure that their reporting complies with the law.’
Family High Court rulings released into the public domain contain a standard caveat: ‘This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.’ This leaves the legal jeopardy with reporters and their publications and fair and accurate reporting of such rulings in a context of triangulating information could still be problematical.
Considerable merit and credit needs to be given to the professionalism and dedication of family law journalists who have been trying over many years to improve greater openness in a division of law in a country that places more children into local authority care than any other in Europe. As mentioned in Chapter 5, freelance journalist Melanie Newman is one of those public spirited reporters who fought for significant access to court documents in a case in 2020 which related to the removal into care of a 2-year-old child from her mother by social workers for Southampton City Council. (See Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam) (05 August 2020) at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2103.html and https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2148.html);
Persistent campaigning for more openness led to the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane releasing the report ‘Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts’ in late 2021. He conceded: ‘The present system in the Family Courts whereby a journalist may attend any hearing but may not always report what they observe, is not sustainable.’ One year later the House of Commons Justice Committee’s report on ‘Open justice: court reporting in the digital age’ concluded and recommended law reform so that ‘media representatives and bloggers should be able to report, subject to the relevant restrictions, on the cases they observe in the Family Court.’ (See: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Confidence-and-Confidentiality-Transparency-in-the-Family-Courts-final.pdf;
Non-children family court hearings are sometimes heard in open court and these could include paying maintenance, declarations about parentage, legitimacy or marital status disputes, matrimonial and civil partnership proceedings, and financial orders arising out of disputes over assets;
Reporting restrictions apply from Section 1(1)(b) of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926, limiting reporting to four categories of information: 1 the names, addresses, and occupations of parties and witnesses; 2 the grounds of the application and a concise statement of the charges, defences, and counter-charges in support of which evidence has been given; 3 submissions on any point of law arising in the proceedings and the decision of the court on the submissions; and 4 the summing up of the judge, the judgment, and any observations made by the judge in giving it (See Section 1(1)(b) of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/16-17/61/section/1);
This legislation is duplicated by Section 2 of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 in any court which hears such a case or an appeal. (See: Section 2 of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968- https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/63/section/2);
In practice these restrictions mean that journalists covering any family hearings held in open court can only reply on what the magistrate or judge says about the evidence along with any accompanying judicial observations made when giving the court’s decision. Identification of the parties is likely to be subject to anonymity requests on Article 8 Human Rights Act privacy grounds. Any involvement of children would inevitably guarantee anonymising obligations and the potential prohibition on reporting the case. ‘A concise statement of the charges, defences, and counter-charges in support of which evidence has been given’ is probably best left to any summary provided in the judge’s ruling.
The anonymity of medical clinicians in end of life proceedings, particularly involving infant children has been clarified by a key precedent in the Court of Appeal 31st March 2023. See: Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 (31 March 2023) at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/331.html The background was explained by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett: ‘These appeals concern the principles to be applied when a court considers an application to vary or discharge a Reporting Restriction Order (“RRO”) made long before in end-of-life proceedings in the High Court. Such orders often protect the identities of all those involved in the care of a patient in respect of whom an application to withdraw treatment is made. That is usually to protect the privacy of the patient, of the patient’s immediate family and of those concerned in the treatment of the patient as well as to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings.’
Lord Burnett went on to explain: ‘Such proceedings are apt to generate a great deal of passionate debate which spills over into harassment of those involved in the proceedings, picketing of hospitals and interference with the working of the hospitals. There are too many who involve themselves in these kinds of debate who lack all sense of proportion and display intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them. Some are not willing to admit that there may be two legitimate points of view. Nonetheless, the circumstances in which it is lawful or ethical to withdraw treatment is the subject of legitimate debate.’ In a unanimous ruling supported by Lady Justice King and Lady Justice Carr, Lord Burnett concluded the indefinite reporting restrictions were not correct in law because Article 10 freedom of expression rights outweigh Article 8 privacy rights.
Lord Burnett explained: ‘The orders made in these cases provide for the indefinite continuation of injunctions against the world prohibiting publication of the names of a small number of clinicians in the Abbasi case and a wide range of health service staff in the Haastrup case. The intense focus on the specific rights being claimed delivers the clear conclusion that the article 10 rights of the parents in wishing to “tell their story” outweigh such article 8 rights of clinicians and staff as may still be in play, long after the RROs were made in the respective end-of-life proceedings. The wider systemic concerns which affect the operation of the NHS laid before the court by representative bodies cannot justify the creation of a practice, not anchored to the specific circumstances of the case, of granting indefinite anonymity to those involved in end-of-life proceedings. Such a step is one that is controversial and intensely political and suitable for Parliament rather than the courts.’ An excellent analysis of this ruling has been written by the much respected media lawyer Sam Brookman in the Hold The Front Page ‘Law Column: Reporting restrictions overturned in two end of life cases.’ She explains that the overturning of the two reporting restriction orders ‘are important legally because the judgment is another example of the courts coming down in favour of freedom of expression.’ (See: https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/law-column-reporting-restrictions-overturned-in-two-end-of-life-cases/)
From 2016 proceedings in the Court of Protection, established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, began to sit in public beginning with a pilot scheme allowing access to journalists and bloggers who were subject to ‘transparency orders’ setting out what could and could not be reported. This court makes decisions for people who lack the mental capacity to make them for themselves. When it stopped sitting in private, this meant that the restrictions under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 no longer applied.
The Court has formalized rules on reporting open proceedings supported by a Practice Direction. Restrictions continue to be imposed to protect the identities of those involved in the proceedings through transparency orders though sometimes identifying details are permitted in media reports. (See Court of Protection Rules 2017 4.2 Court’s general power to authorise publication of information about proceedings-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1035/article/4.2/made and 4.3 Court’s power to order that a hearing be held in public-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1035/article/4.3/made and Practice Direction 4C Transparency Order-https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/pd-4c-transparency.pdf);
A pervasive issue in the Court of Protection is where decisions are made to close hearings and seal evidence and case documentation; otherwise known as ‘Closed Material’. This matter became controversial in the case of Re A (Covert Medication, Closed Proceedings), [2022] where the Court of Protection authorised the covert administration of hormone treatment to a young woman without the knowledge of her family. (See: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2022/44.html) In February 2023 the Vice President of the Court Protection, Mr Justice Hayden decided to issue guidance on ‘Close Hearings’ and ‘Closed Material.’ This followed the convening of a sub-committee of judges and lawyers which received ‘helpful submissions from Professor Celia Kitzinger, Open Justice (Court of Protection);
The guidance seeks to set out proper procedure and as much transparency as possible in ‘situations which are rare, but which do occur from time to time, [when] it is necessary for the court to consider whether a hearing should be closed and/or for material be closed.’ Mr Justice Hayden advised: ‘Nothing in this guidance is intended to increase the number of closed hearings or applications for material to be closed. Rather, its purpose is to provide clarity as to the principles to be applied and considerations to be taken into account in the very limited circumstances under which such steps may be appropriate.’ (See: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guidance-for-the-court-of-protection-closed-hearings-and-closed-material/);
Mr Justice Hayden said at paragraph 20: ‘The requirements of open justice still weigh heavily and require the publication of a reasoned judgment at the earliest possible opportunity to explain both the rationale for the holding of the closed hearing and (insofar as possible) the substantive decision reached at the hearing’;
In May 2023 PA Media produced a feature seeking to explain: ‘The Family Court system that gave Finley Boden back to his killer parents. The case of Finley Boden shone a spotlight on the often hidden world of Family Court hearings.’ This included comments by Lucy Reed KC is a family barrister specialising in children for 22 years, based in Bristol and London. See: https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/23550557.family-court-system-gave-finley-boden-back-killer-parents/ ;
Should names be published in sensitive and high value divorce cases? Longstanding Family Division judge Mr Justice Mostyn has made it clear in some rulings that they should. But he appears to be in a minority as revealed in a 2023 report ‘transparency in financial remedies’ by circuit judge Stuart Farquhar. See: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/final-report-of-the-financial-remedies-court-frc-sub-group-of-the-transparency-implementation-group/ and https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/FRC-TIG-Final-Report-April-2023.pdf At 12.113 the report observed: ‘ Overall the tenor of evidence received was, as one respondent put it: “What is the true public benefit of transparency, as compared to the harm caused to a child who is unlucky enough to have experienced her parents’ divorce and then has the added pain of seeing the unpleasant details of her parents’ dispute spread across the press and social media, readily available at the touch of a screen to everyone who knows her?” And another said: “to open up the marriage warts and all weaponises the content and can have a devastating impact on the family generally, the children in particular.”’
The report was discussed by The Times newspaper’s legal affairs correspondent Jonathan Ames ‘Family judge rebels on anonymity’ (May 25 2023) at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/family-judge-rebels-over-anonymity-jmfs9m798 This is behind a paywall, but your university library should have a subscription for username and password access. This is also true of an extensive feture by Louise Eccles for the Sunday Times News Review (28 May 2023) ‘Inside The Family Court- Covid jabs, tears and custody battles. As judges seek to show their rulings are fair, some family courts have been opened to the press for the first time. Louise Eccles reports on the sad but vital work.’ See: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tears-custody-battles-and-covid-jabs-a-week-inside-britains-family-courts-9jjqv5bs8
Media Lawyer Sam Brookman analysed a Family Court ruling in Derbyshire County Council v Marsden [2023] EWHC 1892 (Fam) (21 July 2023) See: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/1892.html in which the High Court judge clarified that ‘Publishers can name lay justices and advisors in care proceedings.’ The case concerned Child A – a sibling of Finley Boden, who was killed by his parents after he was returned to their care two months prior to his death. The BBC, Telegraph and PA Media made an application for the release of the Family Court judgment which allowed Finley to be returned to the care of his parents together with some supporting documents including the skeleton arguments and case summaries from the hearing in question. Mrs. Justice Lieven allowed the disclosure of redacted versions of the documents.
The Judge also said statutory restrictions relating to care proceedings are to protect the children involved and possibly their families, and not the professionals involved. Lay Magistrates are still judges who ‘make very important decisions that impact on children and families in the most significant way. As such, there is no case for their names not to be in the public domain when decisions are made, in the same way as would the names of judges who had made such decisions.’ The judge made the same point about legal advisors in such court cases. In her article at https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/law-column-publishers-can-name-lay-justices-and-advisors-in-care-proceedings/ Sam Brookman said: ‘With the push towards increased openness in the family courts, this is a welcome step forward and a principle which is certainly worth remembering.’
On 5^th October 2023 freelance family law journalist Louise Tickle secured a significant victory in appealing restrictions preventing her from reporting a family law case in Manchester. As Mrs Justice Lieven explained the issue was whether ‘the Judge erred in law in his application of the balance between Ms Tickle’s rights to report under Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the child and family’s right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR.’ The case is Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam) (05 October 2023) with the ruling available online at: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/2446.html
The case was described as ‘highly contentious private family law proceedings concerning a child under the age of 5’ where there are ‘there are allegations of domestic abuse and “parental alienation” in the factual mix.’ Louise Tickle agreed to maintain anonymity for the child involved and adult parties, but wanted to report ‘the significant issues of public interest’ which were: ‘i. Continuing practical difficulties arising due to the lack of legal aid provision; ii. The disruption caused to private law applications concerning children; iii. Problems for the court system, and other families within the court system, of delays/adjournments where time has to be found for cases; iv. Issues regarding transparency and media attendance, including the culture of the Family Justice System’s interaction with/response to the media, especially in the context of the ongoing Transparency Pilot.’
At paragraphs 49 and 50 of her ruling she reiterated: ‘…there is a public interest in the reporting of cases in the Family Courts. This is made clear in the report of the President of the Family Division (Sir Andrew McFarlane) in his report Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts (21 October 2021). At paragraph 22 the President said: “The level of legitimate media and public concern about the workings of the Family Court is now such that it is necessary for the court to regard openness as the new norm. I have, therefore, reached the clear conclusion that there needs to be a major shift in culture and process to increase the transparency of the system in a number of respects. In short, the reasons for this conclusion are as follows: …” The Report goes on to refer to the genuine and legitimate public interest in the Family Justice System for the purposes of gaining public confidence in the system, and greater knowledge and understanding of issues such as domestic abuse, see [30]. In my view it is relevant that because most Family Court cases are held in private and with no reporting, there is less knowledge or understanding of the challenges facing the Family Justice System than those facing the Criminal Justice System. There is a very real public interest in there being greater understanding of the work done by the Family Courts.’
Mrs Justice Lieven said: ‘I conclude that the Judge erred in law. The decision to adjourn the reporting application was a case management decision and as such the Court should ordinarily be very slow to intervene … However, a decision on reporting is rather different from most case management decisions because it interferes with an Article 10 right and in practice may prevent that journalist from reporting at all.’
At paragraph 54 she said: ‘In my view, the Judge here did not apply the Article 8/10 balance in a legally appropriate manner. On the Article 8 side of the balance he did not address his mind to the fact that given the restrictions that Ms Tickle proposed, there was no possibility of the child or parents being identified. She did not seek to report any of the evidence and any of the factual matrix beyond the greatest of generalities. As such, it put the case well outside the norm of what is sought to be reported. The Judge in his consideration simply did not engage with the scope of the limitations Ms Tickle was proposing. As such, “confidentiality” or “anonymity” did not arise in any meaningful way on the facts of the case.’
In conclusion, the judged ruled: ‘I take the view that this is a case where the Article 8/10 balance, and taking into account any impacts on Article 6 rights, points clearly in favour of allowing report. In very brief summary, there is effectively no risk of the child being identified. There is a strong public interest in allowing Ms Tickle to report the generic concerns about the Family Justice System which arise. There is no interference in any parties’ Article 6 rights. I will therefore allow the appeal and allow the application.’
The case has been analysed by media lawyer Eloise Spensley for the Hold The Front Page Jaffa Law Column 11th October 2023 ‘No party holds a veto on reporting in the Family Court’ at: https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/law-column-no-party-holds-a-veto-on-reporting-in-the-family-court/ She said:’Lieven J. took the view that the judge in the original case at Manchester had failed to carry out the balancing exercise between the rights of privacy and freedom of expression appropriately. She further stated that it is rarely, though not never, relevant for a Judge to consider why a reporter is seeking to report on a matter. It is not for the Court to consider the quality or fairness of any coverage. In a statement certain to be welcomed by editors across the nation, the Judge held that “the court is not an arbiter of the editorial content of reporting”.
Ms Spensley added: ‘Lieven J. went on to say that there was a clear and strong public interest in reporting the case and that whilst the father may well identify his own case in a generic report, that did not constitute grounds on which to refuse reporting.’ She underlines how the ruling ‘demonstrates a sign of commitment from the Judiciary to the issue of improved transparency in the family courts and further highlights the importance of the principle of open justice, particularly in relation to the significant public interest in reporting cases heard within the family court.’
Louise Tickle’s successful appeal received favourable coverage from Press Gazette 9th October 2023 in the article ‘Freelance journalist wins solo High Court fight to shine light on family courts’ at: https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/freelance-journalist-wins-solo-high-court-fight-to-shine-light-on-family-courts/ In the article she explained: ‘I could tell quickly that this judge and this court were not friendly to journalists.[The judge] tried to find out how I found out about the case. He asked the parties, a separated couple, if they had been in touch with me. Anybody is allowed to tell a journalist they have a case, but they can’t tell them the details. I told him I was not prepared to answer those questions and there was a rather fractious hearing. I used the chat function on the Teams call to say I was going to make an application to report on the case but the judge said ‘no’.”

PDF file with media law briefing on this case

SuccessfulappealbyFamilyLawjournalistachievingreportingrightsMediaLawBriefing12thOctober2023 Download

Links

Section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960 Publication of information relating to proceedings in private

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/65

Section 97 Children Act 1989 Privacy for children involved in certain proceedings:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/97

Section 123 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/123

Section 1 Judicial Proceedings (Restriction on Reports) Act 1926 Restriction on publication of reports of judicial proceedings

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/16-17/61/section/1

Examples of family court rulings released to the media

Norfolk County Council v Webster & Ors [2006] EWHC 2733 (Fam) (01 November 2006)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2006/2733.html

Re E (Medical treatment: Anorexia) (Rev 1) [2012] EWHC 1639 (COP) (15 June 2012)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/COP/2012/1639.html

President of the Family Division: Guidance as to reporting in the Family Courts

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Presidents-Guidance-reporting-restrictions-Final-Oct-2019-1.pdf

HM Courts and Tribunals Service Jurisdictional guidance to support media access Family courts

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-to-staff-on-supporting-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals/jurisdictional-guidance-to-support-media-access-to-courts-and-tribunals-family-courts-guide-accessible-version

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1074298/HMCTS707_media_guidance_-_Family_Court_Guide_MAY_2022_V1.pdf

Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam) (05 August 2020)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2103.html

Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors (COSTS and PTA) [2020] EWHC 2148 (Fam) (05 August 2020)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2148.html

Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts, October 2021

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Confidence-and-Confidentiality-Transparency-in-the-Family-Courts-final.pdf

Re S (a child), Re [2004] UKHL 47 (28 October 2004)

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/47.html

Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1882 (10 December 2021)

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1882.html

Hold The Front Page Jaffa Law Column: New drive to transparency in reporting the Family Court

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2022/news/law-column-new-drive-to-transparency-in-reporting-the-family-court/

House of Commons Justice Committee: ‘Open justice: court reporting in the digital age’

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/33518/documents/182166/default/

Louise Tickle and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism- ‘Family Justice What you need to know about the pilot for reporting on the family court system

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/family-justice

A (Covert Medication: Closed Proceedings) [2022] EWCOP 44 (07 October 2022)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2022/44.html

February 9, 2023 Guidance for the Court of Protection: ‘Closed hearings’ and ‘closed material’

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/guidance-for-the-court-of-protection-closed-hearings-and-closed-material/

Key Court of Appeal ruling on anonymity rights of medical clinicians in end of life proceedings. Freedom of expression Article 10 rights of families involved outweight Article 8 Privacy rights of the medical carers. Case reference: Abbasi & Anor v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 (31 March 2023)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2023/331.html

Analysis of this ruling by the media lawyer Sam Brookman at Hold The Front Page ‘Law Column: Reporting restrictions overturned in two end of life cases.’

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/law-column-reporting-restrictions-overturned-in-two-end-of-life-cases/

Transparency in the Financial Remedies Court- The Final Report of the Financial Remedies Sub-Group of The Transparency Implementation Group April 2023

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/FRC-TIG-Final-Report-April-2023.pdf

‘Family judge rebels on anonymity’ Times May 25 2023

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/family-judge-rebels-over-anonymity-jmfs9m798

Sunday Times News Review (28 May 2023) ‘Inside The Family Court- Covid jabs, tears and custody battles’

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tears-custody-battles-and-covid-jabs-a-week-inside-britains-family-courts-9jjqv5bs8

Hold The Front Page Law Column 8th August 2023 ‘Law Column: Publishers can name lay justices and advisors in care proceedings.’

https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/law-column-publishers-can-name-lay-justices-and-advisors-in-care-proceedings/

Derbyshire County Council v Marsden [2023] EWHC 1892 (Fam) (21 July 2023) https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/1892.html

Secondary Media Law Codes and Guidelines

IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice in one page pdf document format https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/2032/ecop-2021-ipso-version-pdf.pdf

The Editors’ Codebook 144 pages pdf booklet 2022 edition https://www.editorscode.org.uk/downloads/codebook/codebook-2022.pdf

IMPRESS Standards Guidance and Code 72 page 2023 edition https://www.impress.press/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Impress-Standards-Code.pdf