LOUISE TICKLE v HEREFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & ORS.

LOUISE TICKLE v HEREFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & ORS.

The public interest in transparency, the mother’s right to tell her story, and the limited risk of harm to the children outweigh the arguments for anonymity. Reporting restrictions will be imposed to protect the children’s identities, but the mother may be named and interviewed. There is no justification for a general restriction on naming social workers in this case.

Parties
Applicant: Louise Tickle; First Respondent: Herefordshire County Council; Second Respondent: Angeline Logan; Third Respondent: The Father; Fourth to Eighth Respondents: The Children (through their Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Children Act 1989 / Reporting Restrictions / Judgment After Inter Partes Hearing
Outcome
Application by journalist allowed in part; reporting restrictions imposed to protect children’s identities; mother may be named and interviewed; no general anonymity for social workers.
Legal Topics
Reporting Restrictions, Children's Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Open Justice, Anonymity of Social Workers
Family Law Media Law Human Rights Reporting Restrictions Children's Privacy Freedom of Expression Open Justice Anonymity of Social Workers

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Tickle

Applicant

Herefordshire County Council

First Respondent

Angeline Logan

Second Respondent

The Father

Third Respondent

The Children (through their Children’s Guardian)

Fourth to Eighth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Children Act 1989 / Reporting Restrictions / Judgment After Inter Partes Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant journalist may identify and interview the mother in a BBC programme about completed care proceedings
  2. 2 Whether reporting restrictions should prevent naming of the mother, children, or social workers
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights

Ratio Decidendi

The public interest in transparency, the mother’s right to tell her story, and the limited risk of harm to the children outweigh the arguments for anonymity. Reporting restrictions will be imposed to protect the children’s identities, but the mother may be named and interviewed. There is no justification for a general restriction on naming social workers in this case.

Court Disposition

Application by journalist allowed in part; reporting restrictions imposed to protect children’s identities; mother may be named and interviewed; no general anonymity for social workers.

Orders

  • Ms Logan may be named and interviewed on camera for the BBC programme.
  • Reporting restrictions imposed: no publication of the children’s names, dates of birth, addresses, schools, or identifying details; no filming or recording of the children.