Family Court judge refuses application to name local authority and police force criticised in earlier judgment

A judge sitting in the Family Court has rejected an application by a media organisation for a council and a police force involved in care proceedings to be named, in a case where the authorities were found to be at fault for their actions.

His Honour Judge Jonathan Holmes concluded that although the matter would be of public interest, the “almost inevitable” local and possibly national press interest that could potentially follow focused on the relevant local authority and police would “significantly increase” the prospect of jigsaw identification of the child involved, and could lead to harm.

The case was the third judgment in the proceedings.

The judge noted that the background to the matter was set out fully in the first judgment. The decision dealt with the withdrawal of care proceedings together with significant criticisms of the local authority and police in terms of their actions and failings.

The second judgment considered the issue of whether the substantive judgment should be published, and if so, what redactions/anonymisations were required. Publication was opposed by the local authority, police and Guardian.

Outlining his conclusions on the second judgment, HHJ Holmes said: “Having balanced the relevant rights and risks I was satisfied that the balance fell in favour of the judgment being published subject to significant redactions and anonymisations.”

The present case arose from an application by Tortoise Media for the judge to revisit the issue of naming the local authority and police force involved.

The overarching submission by Tortoise Media was that the public interest in naming the local authority and police “outweighed” the competing rights and interests of the child who might be identified as result of naming the local authority and police.

Tortoise Media also sought:

• Publication of the third judgment;
• Permission to publish submissions from the hearing on Tortoise Media website;
• Permission to be able to interview the Grandmother and Grandfather and to quote from documents.

All of the applications were supported by Grandmother and Grandfather. The substantive application to name the local authority and police was opposed by the local authority, police and Guardian.

Outlining the parties’ submissions, the judge said Louise Tickle, who advanced the argument on behalf of Tortoise Media, argued that the use of the judgment was “limited” if the exact local authority and police were not named.

He noted: “She said that in my judgment I expressed some scepticism in terms of the operational impact on the local authority and police. She developed this further saying that without naming them there is no way to hold the local authority or police to account – no way to check that they have instigated the changes as they said they would.”

Ms Tickle added that the failings of the local authority should be known to regulators and councillors.

She submitted that the key issue regarding naming the local authority and police force was that of identification and how it might harm the child. She contended that it was “not clear” from the judgment the extent to which this had been considered.

Ms Tickle urged the court to be wary of jigsaw identification saying it was a “convenient argument” for the local authority and police, who have “a vested interest in not being named”.

The local authority told the court it “regretted” the failings which were present in the case and that it accepted the criticisms of its processes made by the Court in the substantive judgment.

HHJ Holmes said: “[The local authority] maintain that they are actively reviewing the decisions made in this case and that there is a strong commitment to ensure that lessons are learned so as to ensure there is no repetition of the errors made in the case.”

Counsel for the local authority submitted that the focus must remain on the risk of identification for this child given his particular circumstances and the consequences of identification.

Finally, outlining the submissions of the Children’s Guardian, HHJ Holmes said: “[Counsel for the Guardian] submitted that in this case we are concerned with a relatively small geographical area. She said this case is about whether this child can make his way to school without being peered at, gossiped about and talked about."

Counsel for the Guardian said that the boy had already been the subject of three sets of proceedings before this application and that he was a young child who should be allowed peace "without others knowing his business".

Analysing the arguments, HHJ Holmes said he “fully accepted” that there are benefits that arise from both the police and local authority being named, and that there is public interest in the detail being known.

However, he noted: “The issue is not whether there is a public interest in this matter. It is whether that should outweigh the competing interests of the child. My concern throughout has been the impact publication and possible identification would have on this child. Whilst not agreeing with the Guardian in terms of the judgment itself being published I attached considerable weight to the view of the Guardian in terms of the level of redaction and anonymisation that was required to avoid jigsaw identification and to avoid the harm that she feared would follow. This is harm and the likelihood of that harm arising from the child being identified.

“Ms Tickle says that the local authority and police have a vested interest in not being named. Whilst I accept that may be true the same cannot be said for the Guardian. She strongly advocated during the proceedings for the local authority to review its position. She was harshly critical of the local authority when it came to the way they had approached the matter throughout.”

The judge added: “I noted in my judgment the disruption which the child has experienced in his short life. This is the third set of public law proceedings which he has been involved in since his birth…..I agree with the submissions of the Guardian that the child lives in a relatively small community where he attends school and activities.”

He said that the boy lived in a community where some people inevitably knew some of the detail. “But there is a significant difference between that and knowing the full history as extensively set out in the judgment.”

Refusing the application, HHJ Holmes concluded: “As meritorious and seemingly compelling the arguments of Ms Tickle may appear they were to a very large extent matters that I had in mind when originally balancing the respective Article 8 and Article 10 rights. Ms Tickle has undoubtedly elucidated the matters in much greater detail and with the benefit of the unique perspective of the independent press but I am not satisfied that balance is such that it tips in favour of naming the local authority or the police.

“The almost inevitable local and perhaps national press interest that could potentially follow focused on the relevant local authority and police would significantly increase the prospect of jigsaw identification and lead to the harm that is feared of by the Guardian. Fears that I share.”

He determined that the child's welfare “positively requires” that he be protected from identification.

Lottie Winson