In the matter of A (A Child)

In the matter of A (A Child)

The Supreme Court held that disclosure of X’s allegations and identity to the parties is necessary to ensure a fair trial and to protect the welfare and family life rights of A, M, and F. The interference with X’s privacy rights under Article 8 is justified and proportionate, and the threshold for Article 3 is not met. Closed material procedures are not appropriate or sufficient in this context.

Parties
Subject Child: A (A Child); Applicant/mother: M (Mother); Respondent/father: F (Father); Third Party/informant: X; Guardian/party: Children’s Guardian; Intervener: Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Contact/disclosure / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order for disclosure upheld.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Confidential Information, Public Interest Immunity, Article 3 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Fair Trial Rights, Protection of Vulnerable Witnesses
Family Law Human Rights Law Child Protection Disclosure of Confidential Information Public Interest Immunity Article 3 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Fair Trial Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A (A Child)

Subject Child

M (Mother)

Applicant/mother

F (Father)

Respondent/father

X

Third Party/informant

Children’s Guardian

Guardian/party

Local Authority

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Contact/disclosure / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure of confidential allegations of sexual abuse made by a third party (X) should be ordered in child contact proceedings, balancing the rights of the informant against the rights of the parties and the child.
  2. 2 Whether disclosure would violate X’s rights under Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) or Article 8 (private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  3. 3 Whether a closed material procedure could be adopted to protect X’s interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that disclosure of X’s allegations and identity to the parties is necessary to ensure a fair trial and to protect the welfare and family life rights of A, M, and F. The interference with X’s privacy rights under Article 8 is justified and proportionate, and the threshold for Article 3 is not met. Closed material procedures are not appropriate or sufficient in this context.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order for disclosure upheld.

Orders

  • Disclosure of the confidential material to the parties as ordered by the Court of Appeal.
  • No order for costs unless submissions are made within seven days.