Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.3) (Publication of Judgments)

Blackpool Borough Council v Langley and Ors (No.3) (Publication of Judgments)

The judgments should be published subject only to the anonymisation of RR’s name and the father’s name. The mother’s name and HIV status are not to be anonymised because (i) the public interest in transparency and open justice, (ii) the necessity of those facts to understand the court’s reasoning and the public debate on expert evidence, and (iii) the extensive information already in the public domain mean that further anonymisation would be artificial and would not materially protect RR. The Article 8 rights of the mother and RR must yield to the Article 10 right to freedom of expression in these circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Blackpool Borough Council; First Respondent (a Minor by Her Children’s Guardian): RR; Second Respondent (mother): Laura Langley; Third Respondent (father): MR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Application to Vary Transparency Order / Judgment on Anonymisation and Publication of Judgments
Outcome
Judgments to be published with only RR’s and the father’s names anonymised; Transparency Order to be varied accordingly.
Legal Topics
Anonymisation of Judgments, Transparency Orders, Open Justice, Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression), Parens Patriae Jurisdiction, Reporting Restrictions
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Anonymisation of Judgments Transparency Orders Open Justice Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Article 10 ECHR (freedom of Expression) +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blackpool Borough Council

Applicant

RR

First Respondent (a Minor by Her Children’s Guardian)

Laura Langley

Second Respondent (mother)

MR

Third Respondent (father)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Application to Vary Transparency Order / Judgment on Anonymisation and Publication of Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgments in the care proceedings should be anonymised prior to publication and to what extent
  2. 2 Whether the existing Transparency Order should be varied
  3. 3 Whether the mother’s name, HIV status, RR’s name, the local authority, and the hospital should be anonymised

Ratio Decidendi

The judgments should be published subject only to the anonymisation of RR’s name and the father’s name. The mother’s name and HIV status are not to be anonymised because (i) the public interest in transparency and open justice, (ii) the necessity of those facts to understand the court’s reasoning and the public debate on expert evidence, and (iii) the extensive information already in the public domain mean that further anonymisation would be artificial and would not materially protect RR. The Article 8 rights of the mother and RR must yield to the Article 10 right to freedom of expression in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Judgments to be published with only RR’s and the father’s names anonymised; Transparency Order to be varied accordingly.

Orders

  • Judgments (fact finding, re-opening, and this judgment) to be published with redactions only of RR’s and the father’s names.
  • Transparency Order to be varied to permit publication consistent with this judgment.