M v F & Anor

M v F & Anor

The court concluded that, although there is a public interest in publishing both judgments and naming the expert, the countervailing need to protect Dr X from harassment and/or harm outweighs the open justice principle in this instance. Anonymity for Dr X is necessary and proportionate to protect their Article 8 rights, given the risks associated with their work and the evidence provided. The judgments will be published in anonymised form, with Dr X’s identity protected.

Parties
Applicant: M; 1st Respondent: F; 2nd Respondent: S (a child through her Guardian, CB)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Family / Post Judgment Application Regarding Publication/anonymity
Outcome
Judgment to be published in anonymised form; Dr X to remain anonymous; no unrestricted right of reply granted to Dr X; advocates also anonymised.
Legal Topics
Anonymity of Experts, Publication of Judgments, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Expert Evidence, Open Justice, Practice Direction 25 B
Family Law Children Law Human Rights Anonymity of Experts Publication of Judgments Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR Expert Evidence +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M

Applicant

F

1st Respondent

S (a child through her Guardian, CB)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Post Judgment Application Regarding Publication/anonymity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment should be published at all
  2. 2 Whether the expert Dr X should be afforded anonymity in any published judgment
  3. 3 How to balance Article 8 (private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights in the context of expert anonymity

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that, although there is a public interest in publishing both judgments and naming the expert, the countervailing need to protect Dr X from harassment and/or harm outweighs the open justice principle in this instance. Anonymity for Dr X is necessary and proportionate to protect their Article 8 rights, given the risks associated with their work and the evidence provided. The judgments will be published in anonymised form, with Dr X’s identity protected.

Court Disposition

Judgment to be published in anonymised form; Dr X to remain anonymous; no unrestricted right of reply granted to Dr X; advocates also anonymised.

Orders

  • Both judgments to be published with Dr X anonymised.
  • Advocates’ names to be anonymised.