Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors

Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors

The risk of CA being identified is high but the risk of consequential harm is low and transient. The public interest in open justice and full reporting outweighs the low risk of Article 8 harm. It is disproportionate to prevent reporting of the relationship given the prior publication and public domain context.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Norfolk County Council; 1st Respondent: CA; Respondent: DA (Caroline Grady); 2nd Respondent: Celia Kitzinger (Open Justice Court of Protection Project)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Application to Vary Transparency Order Following Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
Application to vary Transparency Order granted
Legal Topics
Transparency Orders, Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR
Mental Capacity Human Rights Open Justice Transparency Orders Contempt of Court Freedom of Expression Privacy Balancing Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norfolk County Council

Applicant

CA

1st Respondent

DA (Caroline Grady)

Respondent

Celia Kitzinger (Open Justice Court of Protection Project)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Application to Vary Transparency Order Following Contempt Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 4(iii) of the Transparency Order should be deleted to permit reporting of the relationship between the defendant and the protected party
  2. 2 Whether the committal judgment should be published
  3. 3 Balancing Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of CA being identified is high but the risk of consequential harm is low and transient. The public interest in open justice and full reporting outweighs the low risk of Article 8 harm. It is disproportionate to prevent reporting of the relationship given the prior publication and public domain context.

Court Disposition

Application to vary Transparency Order granted

Orders

  • Paragraph 4(iii) of the Transparency Order is deleted
  • The committal judgment will be published once CA's initials are corrected