The High Court has ruled that an application to extend a special care order can be heard under reporting restrictions rather than necessarily in camera, while protecting the confidentiality of the child care proceedings.
Justice Richard Humphreys gave the ruling on 17 September 2018 in an application by the Child and Family Agency to extend the period of a special care order under the Child Care Act 1991. The threshold question was how to interpret the Act’s requirement that proceedings under the relevant Part be heard “otherwise than in public”.
The judge said his view was provisional because a related question was awaiting judgment in separate proceedings before another judge, and this application was not an ideal vehicle for resolving the issue. He nevertheless considered it necessary to address the question before hearing the extension application.
Reading the provision in a way compatible with constitutional and European human rights principles, Justice Humphreys concluded that “otherwise than in public” need not always mean a fully closed hearing. He said the court has discretion to use measures such as reporting restrictions to protect confidentiality, while recognising the constitutional importance of public justice and the confidential nature of child care proceedings.
For this application, the judge said the parties’ concerns could be met by prohibiting publication that identifies the non-professional parties or sets out the affidavits and pleadings beyond general terms. He also proposed excluding people not involved in the case, while allowing legal professionals and media representatives to attend.
The ruling addressed only the threshold question and the conditions for hearing the application. The judgment does not record a decision on whether the special care order should be extended. The second respondent did not take part in the hearing. The agency said it had no strong view on whether the hearing had to be in camera; the other parties appeared to prefer that approach.