Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals concern the court's jurisdiction to prohibit publication of the names of judges involved in historic care and private family law proceedings relating to a tragic murder case in August 2023. Following the Local Authority's wardship application regarding five siblings wrongfully removed abroad, journalists sought disclosure of documents from the historic proceedings, leading to multiple media applications between September and November 2023. The Family Division judge handling the matter made Reporting Restrictions Orders during the criminal trial of the father and step-mother, culminating in convictions and sentencing in December 2024.
An oral order on 9 December 2024 permitted media access to many documents but included a restriction preventing publication of the names of the historic judges involved in those proceedings, except for the presiding judge. No party had requested anonymisation of the judges' names, nor had the judge heard submissions on this point before making the order. The journalists immediately sought permission to appeal the anonymisation, leading to written submissions and a reasoned judgment on 18 December 2024. The judge maintained the decision to anonymise the historic judges pending further consideration and evidence. The appeals were heard in early 2025, focusing on the court's jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and alleged judicial bias.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to prohibit publication of the names of judges involved in historic proceedings, and if so, under what circumstances.
- Whether the anonymisation order was irregular due to the absence of submissions, evidence, or reasons at the time it was made.
- Whether the judge demonstrated inappropriate bias or unfairness towards the media in his judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
Media Parties' Arguments
- The court lacked jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges; any such order must be grounded in the Human Rights Act 1998 and section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
- There was a serious procedural irregularity in making the anonymisation order without prior reasons or submissions.
- The judge exhibited unfair bias against the media by relying on erroneous analysis of media irresponsibility, infringing Article 10 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- The principle of open justice precludes anonymising judges absent compelling justification.
Local Authority's Arguments
- Article 8 rights might be engaged if there is a risk to the physical or psychological integrity of the judges or their families, referencing ECtHR jurisprudence.
- Protection of the children did not require anonymity of the judges.
Father's Arguments
- Supported the judge’s decision based on welfare concerns for the siblings and the limited nature of the anonymisation.
- Justified abbreviated procedural timetable as a reason for lack of submissions or reasons at the time of the order.
Historic Judges' Position
- None sought anonymity initially.
- Expressed serious concerns about risks arising from identification, including threats and impact on family members.
- Two retired judges favored continued anonymity; the sitting judge did not express a position.
- Recommended risk assessments and protective measures before any change.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417 |
Principles of open justice requiring public hearings and transparency of judges' identities. |
Used to affirm that judges must be named and that anonymity undermines public confidence and the administration of justice. |
| Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 |
Four-stage ultimate balancing test between Article 8 and Article 10 rights. |
Applied to assess proportionality in balancing privacy and freedom of expression rights. |
| PMC v. A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB) |
Presumption in favour of open justice unless displaced by countervailing justification. |
Disagreed with by the judge but cited in analysis of open justice presumptions. |
| Derbyshire County Council v. Marsden [2023] EWHC 1892 (Fam) |
Statutory restrictions protect anonymity of children, not professionals; judges should be named. |
Used to support that judges' names should be public and anonymity is exceptional. |
| R v. Felixstowe Ex p. Leigh [1987] 2 WLR 380 |
Rejection of anonymity for magistrates and judicial officers. |
Emphasized public's right to know who sits in judgment; anonymity inimical to justice. |
| Harris v. Harris; Attorney-General v. Harris [2001] 2 FLR 895 |
Judges must show resilience to criticism; lawful criticism does not undermine judiciary's authority. |
Referenced to highlight judges' expected fortitude and limits on anonymity. |
| Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1 |
Importance of press freedom to name individuals in judicial proceedings. |
Supported the principle that naming judges is essential to open justice. |
| R v. Sarker [2018] EWCA Crim 1341 |
Assumption courts should proceed on basis of responsible, fair, and accurate reporting. |
Referenced in discussion of media responsibility and judge’s criticism of reporting. |
| Kaboglu and Oran v. Turkey (ECtHR, 2018) |
Article 8 threshold may be met if physical or psychological integrity is at risk. |
Considered in argument whether judges' Article 8 rights were engaged. |
| Von Hannover v. Germany (ECtHR, 2004) |
Protection of privacy under Article 8 in certain circumstances. |
Also cited in assessing potential privacy risks to judges. |
| Spadijer v. Montenegro (ECtHR, 2021) |
Recognition of increased societal sensitivity to bullying as human rights abuse. |
Referenced in submissions about social media risks to judges. |
| Various Claimants v. Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [2021] EWHC 2020 (QB) |
Caution against excessive restrictions on open justice based on speculative risks. |
Supported the high threshold for anonymisation and need for resilience. |
| Abbasi v. Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCA Civ 331 |
High value on freedom of expression; anonymity orders require compelling evidence. |
Reinforced need for clear evidence and intense evaluation before anonymity granted. |
| Convoy Collateral Ltd v. Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24 |
Wide scope of court’s power to grant injunctions under section 37. |
Noted as theoretical basis for injunction but unlikely without application or evidence. |
| Wolverhampton City Council v. London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 |
Clarification of section 37 injunction powers. |
Referenced to explain court's discretion on injunctions but no jurisdiction here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the rare and complex nature of anonymising judges' identities, emphasizing the foundational principle of open justice which requires judges to be named to maintain public confidence and transparency. The statutory framework, including section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97 of the Children Act 1989, was examined, confirming that these provisions protect children’s privacy but do not extend anonymity to judges.
The court identified the key jurisdictional issue: the judge lacked any evidential basis or application to justify anonymising the historic judges. The names of these judges were already in the public domain through orders and court listings. The judge’s reliance on his own experience and speculative concerns about social media risks was deemed insufficient to engage Articles 2, 3, or 8 of the ECHR and thus no balancing exercise was required or appropriate.
The court rejected the notion that the judge could make such an order on his own motion without evidence or submissions, highlighting procedural irregularity. It emphasized that any protective measures for judges should be handled by court administration or security services rather than by anonymisation orders, which are an exceptional and last-resort measure.
Regarding the alleged bias and unfairness towards the media, the court found that the judge’s disparaging remarks and reliance on anecdotal evidence were inappropriate and demonstrated unfairness to the journalists and media parties. This conduct undermined the vital role of the press in scrutinizing the judiciary and the justice system.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the judge had no jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges, that the order suffered from procedural defects, and that the judge’s conduct towards the media was unfair, warranting allowance of the appeals and a remittal for further proceedings before a different judge.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEALS primarily on the ground that the judge lacked jurisdiction to anonymise the historic judges. Additional grounds of procedural irregularity and unfair treatment of the media also supported this outcome. Permission was granted to pursue an additional ground of appeal relating to alleged judicial bias.
The anonymisation order preventing publication of the historic judges' names was set aside. The court ordered a 7-day period for court administration to implement protective measures before the judges' names are published. No new precedent was established beyond affirming the fundamental principle that judges should be named in open justice absent compelling, evidenced reasons. The case was remitted for further hearings before a different Family Division judge.