RC v FP

RC v FP

The court finds that the risks to the child's welfare, privacy, and relationship with the paternal family from full, deanonymised reporting of these proceedings are serious and outweigh the public interest in open justice and the Article 10 rights of the mother and media. The appropriate balance is to maintain the Transparency Order, preserving anonymity until the child's 18th birthday, permitting only anonymised reporting. The public interest does not justify lifting restrictions given the limited factual findings, the absence of fact-finding on abuse allegations, and the disproportionate harm to the child.

Parties
Applicant: RC; Respondent: FP; Interested Party: BBC; Interested Party: Ms. Lucia Osborne-Crowley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Private Law Children / Final Judgment on Cross Applications Regarding Transparency Order and Reporting Restrictions
Outcome
Transparency Order extended until child's 18th birthday; media application to relax reporting restrictions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transparency Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Child Welfare, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Open Justice, Domestic Abuse, Parental Responsibility, Anonymity in Proceedings
Family Law Human Rights Law Media Law Transparency Orders Reporting Restrictions Child Welfare Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +4 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 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RC

Applicant

FP

Respondent

BBC

Interested Party

Ms. Lucia Osborne-Crowley

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Family Law Private Law Children / Final Judgment on Cross Applications Regarding Transparency Order and Reporting Restrictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the Transparency Order be extended to preserve the anonymity of the child until their 18th birthday?
  2. 2 Should the Administration of Justice Act 1960 s12 be disapplied to allow reporting of identities and documents?
  3. 3 Does the public interest in open justice outweigh the child's welfare and privacy rights?

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the risks to the child's welfare, privacy, and relationship with the paternal family from full, deanonymised reporting of these proceedings are serious and outweigh the public interest in open justice and the Article 10 rights of the mother and media. The appropriate balance is to maintain the Transparency Order, preserving anonymity until the child's 18th birthday, permitting only anonymised reporting. The public interest does not justify lifting restrictions given the limited factual findings, the absence of fact-finding on abuse allegations, and the disproportionate harm to the child.

Court Disposition

Transparency Order extended until child's 18th birthday; media application to relax reporting restrictions dismissed.

Orders

  • Transparency Order extended to preserve anonymity of child and parties until child's 18th birthday.
  • Accredited reporters permitted to report what they have heard in court, but without identifying the parties.