LOUISE TICKLE v ANDREW JAMES GRIFFITHS

LOUISE TICKLE v ANDREW JAMES GRIFFITHS

The judgment should be published with the names of the mother and father included, as the public interest in open justice, transparency, and accountability for public officials outweighs the potential (but limited and manageable) harm to the child from identification. The child's young age, existing publicity, and the ability of the mother to manage any media interest mitigate the risks. The balancing exercise under Re S and related authorities justifies publication with the proposed redactions.

Parties
First Applicant: Louise Tickle; Second Applicant: Brian Farmer; First Respondent: Andrew James Griffiths; Second Respondent: Kate Elizabeth Griffiths; Third Respondent (a Child, Acting Through Their Child’s Guardian): X; Intervenor: Rights of Women
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Family Law Application (publication of Judgment) / High Court Judgment on Application for Publication and Redaction
Outcome
Application granted. Judgment to be published with names of mother and father included, in accordance with proposed redactions.
Legal Topics
Publication of Judgments, Anonymity in Family Proceedings, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Open Justice, Domestic Abuse Findings, Children's Rights
Family Law Human Rights Law Media Law Publication of Judgments Anonymity in Family Proceedings Article 8 ECHR (right to Private Life) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) Open Justice +2 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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Tickle

First Applicant

Brian Farmer

Second Applicant

Andrew James Griffiths

First Respondent

Kate Elizabeth Griffiths

Second Respondent

X

Third Respondent (a Child, Acting Through Their Child’s Guardian)

Rights of Women

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Family Law Application (publication of Judgment) / High Court Judgment on Application for Publication and Redaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fact-finding judgment in family proceedings involving serious domestic abuse should be published with or without redaction of the parents' identities
  2. 2 How to balance Article 8 (privacy) rights of the child and parties against Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights of the media and the mother
  3. 3 Whether the public interest in open justice and transparency outweighs the potential harm to the child from identification

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment should be published with the names of the mother and father included, as the public interest in open justice, transparency, and accountability for public officials outweighs the potential (but limited and manageable) harm to the child from identification. The child's young age, existing publicity, and the ability of the mother to manage any media interest mitigate the risks. The balancing exercise under Re S and related authorities justifies publication with the proposed redactions.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Judgment to be published with names of mother and father included, in accordance with proposed redactions.

Orders

  • Permission granted for publication of the fact-finding judgment with the names of the mother and father included.
  • Redactions to be made as proposed by the applicants and supported by the mother and guardian.