Re Child X (Residence and Contact: Rights of Media Attendance: FPR Rule 10/284(4))
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam) |
| Date | 14 July 2009 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD07P02269 |
[2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION
Before : THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
Case No: FD07P02269
Richard Spearman QC, Deborah Eaton QC and Madeleine Reardon (instructed by Schillings) for the Applicant
Nicholas Cusworth QC (instructed by Levison Meltzer Pigott) for the Respondent
Gavin Millar QC and Guy Vassall-Adams (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the Media
Adam Wolanski (instructed by) CAFCASS Legal as Amicus Curiae
Hearing dates: 29 June 2009 and 8 July 2009
This judgment is being handed down in private on 15 July 2009. It consists of 28 pages and has been signed and dated by the judge. The judge hereby gives leave for it to be reported.
The judgment is being distributed on the strict understanding that in any report no person other than the advocates or the solicitors instructing them (and other persons identified by name in the judgment itself) may be identified by name or location and that in particular the anonymity of the children and the adult members of their family must be strictly preserved.
Sir Mark Potter P:
Introduction
This matter comes before me in the course of ongoing proceedings concerning residence and contact in relation to X, the young daughter of the applicant father who is rightly described as a “celebrity” in that he is, and has for many years been, the subject of a high level of press attention and media interest by reason of his success the public arena. His life and activities are frequently the subject of report both here and abroad.
X lives with the respondent mother who is less well known in her own right but is herself the subject of considerable media interest by reason of her relationship with the father, as indeed is X.
So far as proceedings of this kind are concerned, the legal issues to be resolved are not unusual. The interest of the media in the proceedings lies in the celebrity of the parties and the curiosity and appetite of the public for “human interest” stories in relation to them.
The proceedings have hitherto been heard in private with the press and media excluded. The parties wish that position to continue. However, pursuant to a recent amendment to the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (“FPR”), the media propose to attend future hearings in order to report and discuss the proceedings so far as the law permits.
The position to date
The residence and contact proceedings began in 2007 and have since been conducted continuously before a highly experienced County Court Judge, who has throughout been concerned, and rightly concerned, with the effects of publicity on X who is an intelligent and articulate child, well able to read about and follow references to her parents or herself as well as these proceedings in the press or on the internet. The Judge has, on two occasions in the course of the proceedings, warned the parties against any airing of their dispute in public or originating any leaks to the press and both are currently bound by undertakings to the Court not to disclose any information concerning these proceedings, save to their legal advisers. They have also agreed not give or permit interviews concerning the arrangements for X's upbringing. The parties are themselves genuinely motivated by concern for X, but the Judge was satisfied that the undertakings to which I have referred were essential if reference by the parents to their dispute, or indulgence in any kind of point-scoring in the course of press or other media interviews, was to be avoided.
Both parties have co-operated in supplying information to a CAFCASS officer for the purposes of ascertaining X's wishes and feelings, encouraging contact, and assessing the harm which X has or may have suffered or may be suffering as the result of the parties' estrangement and their attitude towards each other; second, they have also co-operated by resorting to the services of Dr C, a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist. Towards the end of 2008, Dr C was jointly instructed to report on the question of X's welfare generally and, inter alia, (1) whether she was suffering from emotional harm as a result of the current circumstances and the short and long term effects which the parental dispute might have upon her; (2) an assessment of each of the parents' understanding of the issues pertaining to X; (3) what, if any, work should be undertaken by the parents and/or X either separately, or with each other, or as a family.
On 7 December 2008, Dr C reported at length. The parties had given conflicting accounts as to various events which shaped their attitude towards each other, as well as a number of disputed incidents in the course of contact, in relation to which X had formed, or at any rate expressed, her own views and opinions which in turn shaped her attitude to each of her parents. Dr C made clear that he was not in a position to advise about the therapeutic work to be undertaken until there had been a fact finding hearing and the issues as to residence and contact established.
At a directions hearing in early December 2008, Dr C expressed concerns about X's emotional welfare and detailed directions were made in relation to the involvement of Dr C and the progressing of contact. More difficulties were encountered in the light of X's feelings and reactions, and further directions proved necessary shortly before the fact finding hearing. On 4 March 2009 Dr C also delivered an updating report for that hearing.
At the fact finding hearing the Judge heard evidence over a period of four days. The Judge heard evidence from both parties and from Dr C and Miss E the CAFCASS officer who, since March 2008 had been involved with X and the progression of contact. Miss E had made five reports concerning X over the year preceding the hearing. In the light of the intimate, emotional and sensitive nature of the issues explored and the information concerning X as reported by the CAFCASS officer and Dr C, and in the light of the manifest media interest outside the Court, the Judge, in anticipation of her judgment which she reserved, and in response to the joint urgent application of the parties, made a contra mundum order dated 13 March 2009 in relation to X until her 18 th birthday or further order in the following terms:
“ Restrictions
(3) This order prohibits the publishing in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable or satellite programme service or public computer network ('publishing') of;
(a) the name or address of;
(i) the child;
(ii) any school or other establishment in which the child is residing or being educated or treated (an 'establishment'); or
(iii) any natural person other than a parent of the child having the day-to-day care of the child (a 'carer'); or
(iv) the parents of the child ('the parents') being the persons whose names and addresses are set out in the second schedule;
(b) any picture being or including a picture of either (i) the child or (ii) either of the parents;
(c) any other matter.
(4) This order only prohibits publication in a manner which may lead to the identification:
(a) of the child either as being subject of proceedings before the Court;
(b) of an establishment as being an establishment in which the child is residing or being educated or treated;
(c) of any parent or any carer as being the carer of the child;
(d) of any arrangements for or details of or information relating to the child's care, residence, education, treatment or upbringing.
(5) Save for the service of this Order in accordance with para 8 below, no publication of the text or a summary of any part of this Order (or any other order made in the proceedings) may include any of the matters referred to in para 3 above.
(6) This Order prohibits soliciting any information relating to the child (other than information already in the public domain):
(a) from the child;
(b) from the staff or the pupils (or their parents) or residents or anyone connected with any establishment;
(c) from any carer;
(d) from the parents of either of them.
What is not restricted
...(7) Nothing in this Order shall of itself prevent any person:
(a) publishing any particulars of or information relating to any part of the proceedings before any court other than a court sitting in private;
(b) publishing anything which at the date of publication by that person has previously been published (inside the jurisdiction of the court) in any newspaper or other publication or through the Internet or any other broadcast or electronic medium to such an extent that the information is in the public domain (other than in a case where the only publication was made by that person);
(c) inquiring whether a person is protected by para 6 above;
(d) seeking information from any person who has previously approached that person with the purpose of volunteering information;
(e) soliciting information relating to the child while exercising any function authorised by statute or by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Service
(8) Copies of this order endorsed with a penal notice be served by the Applicant:
(a) on such newspaper and sound or television broadcasting or cable or satellite programme services as the Applicant may think fit in each case by fax or first class post addressed to the editor in the case of a newspaper or senior news editor in the case of a broadcasting or cable or satellite programme service; and
(b) on such other persons as the plaintiff may think fit in each case by personal service.
Further applications about this order
(9) The parties and any person affected by any of the restrictions in paras 3–6 above are at liberty to apply on no less than 48 hours notice to the parties.
Third Parties
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicole Appleton (Petitioner) v Liam Gallagher News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another (Interested parties)
...legislation to stiffen the existing reporting restriction rules. In Re Child X (Residence & Contact — Rights of Media Attendance) [2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam) published on 14 July 2009, shortly after the rule change, Sir Mark Potter P explained the scope of the new scheme, as applicable to childr......
-
Cooper-Hohn v Hohn
...ER 1, [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 3 WLR 1571, [2000] 2 FLR 981, HL. X (a child) (residence and contact: rights of media attendance), Re[2009] EWHC 1728 (Fam), [2009] 3 FCR 370, [2009] 2 FLR ApplicationVarious media organisations, representing accredited members of the press attending the financ......
-
V (Second Respondent in the main proceedings) v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others
...v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 529 at paragraph 38 and X (Residence and contact – Rights of the Media to Attend) [2009] EWHC 178 (Fam), [2009] EMLR 26 at paragraph 30, which both concern Family proceedings but engage the same underlying point (and see R(C) at paragraph 17). The impact of t......
-
Tcwf v Lkks
...is applied in proceedings relating to children: see D v D [2009] 2 FLR 324; Spencer v Spencer [2009] 2 FLR 1416; Re Child X [2009] 2 FLR 1467. It should also be noted even in children matters, when a case is heard in the Court of Appeal, it is usually heard in open court though protection i......