- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
HMP, Re
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 concerning two children. The children's mother arranged for their care by a third party ("the first carer") under a private fostering arrangement. After approximately four months, the first carer ceased caring for the children, prompting the local authority to initiate care proceedings. An interim care order was made, and the children were subsequently placed with another carer ("the second carer"). The care proceedings concluded with an order confirming the children’s placement under the supervision of a different local authority.
Subsequent events unrelated to the children prompted journalists from Company A to seek access to documents from the care proceedings and permission to report on information derived from those documents. The Family Division of the High Court granted this application, balancing the public interest in open justice and freedom of expression against the privacy rights of the children. The guardian of the children appealed the order, supported by the second carer and the local authority. Company A initially opposed the appeal but later consented to setting aside the order on the basis of the children’s welfare.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the application for access to court documents was connected to the principle of open justice, thereby engaging the balancing process established in Dring.
- Whether the balancing exercise performed by the trial judge improperly gave undue weight to information already in the public domain.
- Whether the judge gave insufficient weight to the privacy rights of the children in the balancing exercise.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The application was not made for purposes connected with the open justice principle and therefore the balancing test under Dring did not apply.
- The judge erred in giving excessive weight to publicly available information, which distorted the balancing of privacy and expression rights.
- The judge failed to adequately consider the children’s privacy rights in the balancing exercise.
Company A's Arguments
- Initially, Company A argued that the open justice principle justified access and reporting due to the public interest in transparency regarding the family justice system and private fostering arrangements.
- Company A later consented to the appeal being allowed, acknowledging that maintaining opposition would cause undue harm to the children, in accordance with its editorial guidelines emphasizing the welfare of minors.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dring (on behalf of Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK) v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd [2019] UKSC 38; [2020] AC 629 | Defines the constitutional principle of open justice, its purposes, and the requirement that non-parties must show how access to court documents advances open justice. | The court relied on Dring to clarify that the open justice principle is confined to scrutiny of the court system itself and does not extend to unrelated journalistic investigations. The appeal succeeded on the ground that the application was not connected to open justice as defined in Dring. |
| In Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593 | Establishes the balancing process between Article 8 privacy rights and Article 10 freedom of expression in family proceedings. | The trial judge applied the balancing test from this case but was found to have erred in the application given the purpose of the application was not connected with open justice. |
| Newman v Southampton City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 437; [2021] 1 WLR 2900 | Clarifies the limits of the open justice principle, particularly regarding access to sensitive or confidential information not connected to court scrutiny. | The court cited this authority to emphasize that open justice does not justify access to court files for purposes unconnected to examining the work of courts and judges. |
| Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 | Historical authority affirming the constitutional importance of open justice and public access to court proceedings. | Referenced to underline the deep-rooted constitutional basis for open justice as a fundamental principle. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by reaffirming the constitutional principle of open justice as articulated in Dring, identifying its two main purposes: enabling public scrutiny of judicial decision-making and fostering public understanding of the justice system. The court emphasized that open justice applies narrowly to the judicial process and the courts’ work, not to broader public interest investigations unrelated to court scrutiny.
The court found that the BBC’s application was not connected to the open justice principle because the issues it sought to investigate—private fostering arrangements and local authority oversight—were distinct from the matters addressed in the care proceedings. The application was thus outside the ambit of open justice.
The judge below had erred by expanding the concept of the family justice system to include local authority operations independently of the courts and by applying open justice principles to this broader context. This misapplication led to the flawed balancing exercise between privacy and freedom of expression rights.
Given that the application was not properly grounded in open justice, the court held that the appeal must succeed on that basis alone, rendering consideration of the other grounds unnecessary.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL on the ground that the application for access to court documents was not connected to the open justice principle and therefore should not have been entertained under that principle.
The order granting Company A access to the documents and partial variation of reporting restrictions was set aside. The decision reinforces the narrow scope of the open justice principle, limiting access to court files to purposes genuinely connected with judicial transparency and accountability. It clarifies that journalistic investigations unrelated to the workings of the courts should pursue alternative legal avenues, such as freedom of information requests, rather than relying on open justice.
No new precedent was established beyond affirming the proper limits of open justice in the context of family care proceedings.
Alert