A High Court judge has ruled that a designated newspaper reporter may attend and report on a father’s application concerning an earlier family court order, but cannot publish details of any custody or access issue or incident involving the parties’ children.
Mr Justice Keane delivered the ruling on 2 April 2014 in proceedings under the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1995. The parties, identified in the judgment only as A.B. and C.D., are divorced and have been in litigation for more than a decade. Remaining issues concern the care and custody of their minor children.
The father sought to have an order made by the High Court on 28 February 2013 struck out or set aside. That order addressed custody and access issues concerning two children. His application relied on matters discussed in an earlier judgment concerning an approach by the mother to a public representative, who then asked a judge to make an inquiry of the judge handling the case. The earlier judgment described the intervention as improper. The father’s application had not yet been determined.
The mother asked the court to exclude bona fide press representatives from the hearing and prohibit publication or broadcast of any evidence connected with the application. She relied on the children’s views, which the judge had heard in interviews. They expressed concern about identification, embarrassment and local gossip; one described another child raising the case on a bus as intimidating and stressful. The mother also argued that reporting could cause distress and expose the children to harassment.
The judge said there was no evidence before the court explaining how the family had become known locally. He considered that the public interest in confidence in the administration of justice carried particular weight because the underlying dispute raised an issue of attempted interference with the administration of justice. He also noted that custody and access details could be restricted without banning all reporting. The court did not decide whether the conduct described by a child amounted to bullying, coercion, intimidation or harassment.
The court refused to exclude or restrict the reporter’s attendance and refused a complete ban on publication of evidence connected with the father’s application. It ordered Times Newspapers to designate a reporter to attend and report. Nothing may be published about any custody or access issue or incident involving the children in the underlying proceedings. The newspaper and reporter must comply with any further reporting directions, and the reporter may not provide contemporaneous social media coverage.