K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re [2013] EWHC 2684 (Fam) (25 July 2013)

K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re [2013] EWHC 2684 (Fam) (25 July 2013)

The parents' Article 10 rights to discuss their experiences with the media outweigh the risks to the child's Article 8 rights, provided strict anonymisation is maintained. The local authority may be identified, as it was already named in published judgments and there is a strong public interest in accountability. Restrictions must be limited to protecting the child's and family's anonymity, not extending to the local authority. The risk of distress to the child does not justify a blanket prohibition on parental discussion with the media.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2684 (Fam)
Parties
Local Authority: Coventry City Council; Parents: MG and FG; Child: Katie (a child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Wardship (family Law) / Post Final Order, Application to Discharge Media Reporting Restriction
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Wardship, Publicity in Family Proceedings, Freedom of Expression, Anonymity of Children, Reporting Restrictions, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Family Law Child Law Human Rights Wardship Publicity in Family Proceedings Freedom of Expression Anonymity of Children Reporting Restrictions +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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coventry City Council

Local Authority

MG and FG

Parents

Katie (a child)

Child

Procedural Posture

Wardship (family Law) / Post Final Order, Application to Discharge Media Reporting Restriction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parents should be permitted to discuss their case with the media
  2. 2 Whether the local authority may be identified in publicity
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (expression) rights

Ratio Decidendi

The parents' Article 10 rights to discuss their experiences with the media outweigh the risks to the child's Article 8 rights, provided strict anonymisation is maintained. The local authority may be identified, as it was already named in published judgments and there is a strong public interest in accountability. Restrictions must be limited to protecting the child's and family's anonymity, not extending to the local authority. The risk of distress to the child does not justify a blanket prohibition on parental discussion with the media.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • The order prohibiting discussion with the media is discharged.
  • Parents are permitted to discuss their experiences with the media, subject to strict preservation of the anonymity of the child and family members.