M v F and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Family Division |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam) |
| Year | 2025 |
2025 Feb 20; April 2
Practice - Family proceedings - Reporting restrictions - Mother and father both applying for permission to publish information about private law family proceedings - Whether court having power to grant such permission under statute or inherent jurisdiction - Whether permission to be granted -
The mother, who was involved in ongoing private law family proceedings between herself and the father of their child, applied to the court for permission to: (i) publish media articles about her experience of the family court system and the domestic abuse that she had suffered at the hands of the father, using an alias to preserve the confidentiality of herself and the child; and (ii) speak at events facilitated by organisations such as Cafcass, women’s rights groups and children’s rights groups, again using an alias. The father did not oppose the mother’s application but made a similar application, contending that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
On the applications—
Held, granting the mother’s application but refusing the father’s application, (1) that the effect of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, in general terms, was that it would constitute a contempt of court to publish information relating to proceedings held in private with respect to children, unless by way of exception (i) the information was limited to the publication of the text or a summary of an order (subject to the court expressly prohibiting publication) (section 12(2)) or (ii) publication was authorised by rules of court (section 12(4)); that, on a true construction of section 12(2), it could not safely be assumed that publication of a judgment gave any broader mandate to speak publicly about the proceedings in question, given the potential reach of section 12; that, for the purposes of section 12(4), there were no rules of court which authorised a party to publish information about private law family proceedings to the public at large, since the court’s power under FPR r 12.73(1)(b) to grant permission to communicate such information could not be exercised so as to permit communication to the public at large and the court’s power under FPR PD 12R to grant permission to communicate such information could not be exercised so as to permit a party to communicate such information; and that, accordingly, section 12 of the 1960 Act and the FPR did not provide the court with any legal power to permit either the mother or the father to publish information about their private family law proceedings which went beyond that contained within the already published judgments (post, paras 14, 19, 25, 31, 34, 37, 39, 44).
(2) That, however, the High Court had power pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction to permit the publication by a party to private law family proceedings of information relating to those proceedings; that, balancing the rights of each applicant parent under articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms against the rights of the other parent and their child under article 8, the balance was in favour of allowing the mother’s application but refusing the father’s application; that, in particular, the mother had particularly weighty and important rights under articles 8 and 10 to speak about her experiences as a survivor of domestic abuse which (i) outweighed the father’s article 8 right to maintain the confidentiality of the findings that he was a perpetrator of rape and domestic abuse, which was of limited, if any, importance and (ii) were not outweighed by the risk to the child’s article 8 rights, given the mother’s clear commitment to protecting the child’s anonymity; but that the father’s rights under articles 8 and 10 to speak about his experiences of the family justice system, albeit weighty and important, were outweighed by the very high risks to the article 8 rights of the mother and child (post, paras 53–55, 63–65, 69, 71–75).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
B (A Child) (Disclosure), In re
C (A Child) (Private Judgment: Publication), In re
Clayton v Clayton
Norfolk County Council v Webster
Roddy (A Child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication), In re
S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication), In re
Tickle v Griffiths
Tickle v North Tyneside Borough Council
W (Children) (Care Proceedings: Publicity), In re
X, In re
The following additional cases, supplied by courtesy of counsel, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
BR, In re (Practice Note)
CM v IP
DG v KB
DG v KB
H-N, In re (Practice Note)
Newman v Southampton City Council
O (A Child) v Rhodes
Pretty v United Kingdom (Application No 2346/02) [
Summers v White
T (Children: Publication of Judgment), In re
Tickle v Surrey County Council
Tortoise Media Ltd v A Local Authority
Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd
ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
APPLICATION
The mother, Ms M, who was involved in ongoing lengthy private law proceedings between herself and the child’s father, Mr F, applied for permission to: (i) publish media articles about her experiences of the family court system and the domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of the father, using an alias; and (ii) speak at events facilitated by organisations such as Cafcass, women’s right groups and children’s rights groups, using an alias. The father did not oppose the application but at the hearing on 20 February 2025 he sought an equal right to be able to speak and write publicly about the case using an alias, it being his position that he had been the subject of a miscarriage of justice in the serious findings of rape and domestic abuse made against him in the proceedings.
The hearing was held in private and the judgment, with a transparency order in force, is reported with permission of the judge on condition that the anonymity of the children and members of their family be strictly preserved.
The facts are stated in the judgment, post, paras 1–9.
Dr Charlotte Proudman (instructed directly) for the mother.
Patrick Gilmore (instructed by
The father in person.
The court took time for consideration.
2 April 2025. HARRIS J handed down the following judgment.
1 This matter comes before me on an application by Ms M, the applicant mother, for permission to be able to publish information regarding lengthy private law proceedings between herself and the child’s father, Mr F, the first respondent. She seeks permission to be able to:
(i) Publish media articles about her experiences of the family court system and the domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of the father, using an alias; and
(ii) Speak at events facilitated by organisations such as Cafcass, women’s rights groups and children’s rights groups, using an alias.
It is noted at the outset that Ms M’s position is that she would wish to preserve the confidentiality of both herself and the child, C, by using an alias, and thus does not seek permission to disclose the child’s identity or her own.
2 The father’s position is that he does not oppose Ms M’s application. In the hearing before me, he sought an equal right to be able to speak and write publicly about the case using an alias, it being his position that he has been the subject of a miscarriage of justice in the serious findings of rape and domestic abuse made against him.
3 The position of the children’s guardian on behalf of C, is that she is supportive of Ms M being able to speak about her experiences as a victim of abuse and does not therefore oppose Ms M’s application to publish media articles using an alias. She does however sound a note of caution about Ms M being given permission to speak at public events due to the difficulty of maintaining anonymity in such circumstances, and the risk to C of his identity becoming known.
Background4 The mother submits that as a victim of rape and serious domestic abuse, she has been let down by the family justice system. She seeks...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting