K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re (No 2) [2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam) (08 November 2013)

K (A Child: Wardship: Publicity), Re (No 2) [2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam) (08 November 2013)

The court held that the balance between the child's right to privacy and the parents' and media's right to freedom of expression comes down in favour of permitting publication of the anonymised judgment and allowing the parents to identify themselves as 'MG and FG, the parents of Katie' in media discussions, provided anonymity is preserved. The court refused a general declaration exempting the parents from contempt for discussing specified matters, except to permit naming certain professionals, as sufficient information is already public and further relaxation is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam)
Parties
Local Authority: Coventry City Council; Parents: MG and FG (parents of Katie); Child (ward of Court): Katie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Wardship (family Law) / Application for Leave to Publish Judgment, Permission to Identify Parties in Media, and Declaration Regarding Contempt
Outcome
Partially granted and partially refused
Legal Topics
Wardship, Transparency in Family Proceedings, Publication of Judgments, Anonymity Orders, Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Family Law Media Law Child Protection Wardship Transparency in Family Proceedings Publication of Judgments Anonymity Orders Contempt of Court +3 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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coventry City Council

Local Authority

MG and FG (parents of Katie)

Parents

Katie

Child (ward of Court)

Procedural Posture

Wardship (family Law) / Application for Leave to Publish Judgment, Permission to Identify Parties in Media, and Declaration Regarding Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to publish an anonymised judgment relating to therapy for the child
  2. 2 Whether to permit the parents to identify themselves as 'MG and FG, the parents of Katie' in media discussions
  3. 3 Whether to grant a declaration that certain disclosures to the media would not be contempt of court under s.12 Administration of Justice Act 1960

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the balance between the child's right to privacy and the parents' and media's right to freedom of expression comes down in favour of permitting publication of the anonymised judgment and allowing the parents to identify themselves as 'MG and FG, the parents of Katie' in media discussions, provided anonymity is preserved. The court refused a general declaration exempting the parents from contempt for discussing specified matters, except to permit naming certain professionals, as sufficient information is already public and further relaxation is neither necessary nor proportionate.

Court Disposition

Partially granted and partially refused

Orders

  • Leave granted for publication of an anonymised version of the 19 February 2013 judgment, with agreed redactions.
  • Parents permitted to identify themselves as 'MG and FG, the parents of Katie' in media discussions, subject to anonymity safeguards.