Contempt of Court in Private Family Proceedings: Griffiths v Tickle & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 465

Introduction

The case of Griffiths v Tickle & Ors ([2022] EWCA Civ 465) addresses critical issues surrounding the disclosure of confidential information in private family proceedings, specifically under the Children Act 1989. The case was heard in the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on April 5, 2022. The primary parties involved were Mr. Griffiths, the father, and Ms. Tickle, the first respondent. The central issue was whether a fact-finding judgment in Children Act proceedings, held privately in the Family Court at Derby, could be published without anonymizing the parties involved.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Family Court at Derby, which allowed the publication of a fact-finding judgment without anonymizing the mother and father involved. The appellant, Mr. Griffiths, appealed against this decision, challenging the propriety of such disclosure. Additionally, ancillary questions were addressed regarding the unauthorized disclosure of appeal papers by Mr. Clayton, the leading counsel for Mr. Griffiths. The court found that Mr. Clayton's disclosure constituted a significant breach of confidentiality but deemed the harm caused as limited and not deliberate. Consequently, while recognizing that contempt of court "may have been committed," the court decided against initiating further contempt proceedings due to mitigating factors.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to shape its decision:

• Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam): Established that most forms of dissemination, whether oral or written, constitute "publication" under the relevant statutes.
• P v Liverpool Post and Echo Newspapers plc [1991] 2 AC 370: Clarified that mere disclosure of the existence of private proceedings is permissible and not contemptuous.
• X v Dempster [1999] 1 FLR 194: Reinforced that certain disclosures do not automatically amount to contempt.
• R (Counsel General for Wales) v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181: Emphasized the importance of adhering to embargoes on draft judgments.
• Re B (A Child) (Disclosure of Evidence in Care Proceedings) [2012] 1 FLR 142: Interpreted FPR 12.73(1)(iii), limiting disclosures to representations by existing parties.
• Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt (5th ed): Provided a comprehensive discussion on the circumstances under which publication may amount to contempt.

These precedents collectively influenced the court’s interpretation of the statutory provisions and their application to the facts at hand, reinforcing the boundaries of permissible disclosures in family law proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed whether the disclosures made by Mr. Clayton fell within the scope of section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA). The key considerations included:

• Nature of the Disclosure: The skeleton argument contained detailed information about private proceedings, including factual backgrounds, hearings, and judgments, making it fall within the prohibited category unless authorized.
• Authorization under FPR: The Family Procedure Rules (FPR) §§12.73 and 12.75 were scrutinized, with the court finding no provision that would authorize Mr. Clayton’s disclosure to the Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC).
• Intention and Harm: While Mr. Clayton intended the disclosure to seek expert intervention, the court recognized that his actions breached confidentiality, irrespective of intent.
• Mitigating Factors: Mr. Clayton’s long-standing unblemished legal career, his prompt apology, and the limited harm caused were significant in deciding against pursuing contempt proceedings.

The court concluded that although a contemptuous act "may have been committed" due to unauthorized disclosure, the circumstances warranted a proportionate response without further contempt proceedings.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for legal practitioners, especially those involved in private family proceedings under the Children Act 1989. Key impacts include:

• Reaffirmation of Confidentiality: The judgment underscores the paramount importance of maintaining confidentiality in private family proceedings to protect the welfare of children involved.
• Clarification of Disclosure Boundaries: It clarifies that disclosures to third parties, even with professional intentions, require explicit authorization under the FPR, and cannot be assumed permissible.
• Professional Responsibility: Legal professionals are reminded of their duty to familiarize themselves with and adhere strictly to procedural rules governing confidentiality, with an emphasis on seeking court permission when in doubt.
• Precedential Value: The case serves as a reference point for future instances where unauthorized disclosure might be contested, guiding courts in balancing contempt considerations with mitigating factors.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of open justice while simultaneously safeguarding the sensitive nature of family proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment delves into several intricate legal concepts which can be simplified as follows:

• Contempt of Court: This refers to actions that disobey or disrespect the court's authority, potentially disrupting the administration of justice. In this case, unauthorized disclosure of private court proceedings is the focal point.
• Administration of Justice Act 1960 (AJA) Section 12: This section governs the publication of information from private court proceedings, specifically protecting the confidentiality of such cases. Unauthorized publication can lead to contempt charges.
• Family Procedure Rules (FPR) §§12.73 & 12.75: These rules lay out the circumstances under which information from family proceedings can be disclosed. Rule 12.73 pertains to communication with professional legal advisers, while 12.75 relates to communicating with support organizations or obtaining assistance.
• Open Justice Principle: This is the legal principle that courts should be open and transparent. However, in sensitive family law cases, this principle is balanced against the need to protect the privacy and welfare of the child.
• Privileged Communications: Communications between a lawyer and client are protected from disclosure. However, this privilege does not extend to unauthorized third parties.

Understanding these concepts is crucial for legal practitioners to navigate the delicate balance between transparency and confidentiality in family law proceedings.

Conclusion