This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Policy on Dissemination of Judgments'.

TRANSPARENCY IN THE FAMILY COURTS 
PUBLICATION OF JUDGMENTS 
PRACTICE GUIDANCE 
issued on 16 January 2014 by 
SIR JAMES MUNBY, PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION 
The purpose of this Guidance 

This Guidance (together with similar Guidance issued at the same time for the 
Court of Protection) is intended to bring about an immediate and significant change in 
practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of 
Protection. 

In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve 
public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. At 
present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate 
interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name. The 
Guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for 
publication (even if they will often need to be published in appropriately anonymised 
form). 

In July 2011 Sir Nicholas Wall P issued, jointly with Bob Satchwell, 
Executive Director of the Society of Editors, a paper, The Family Courts: Media 
Access & Reporting
 (Media Access & Reporting), setting out a statement of the 
current state of the law. In their preface they recognised that the debate on increased 
transparency and public confidence in the family courts would move forward and that 
future consideration of this difficult and sensitive area would need to include the 
questions of access to and reporting of proceedings by the media, whilst maintaining 
the privacy of the families involved. The paper is to be found at: 
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/family-courts-
media-july2011.pdf 

In April 2013 I issued a statement, View from the President’s Chambers: the 
Process of Reform, [2013] Fam Law 548, in which I identified transparency as one of 
the three strands in the reforms which the family justice system is currently 
undergoing. I said: 
“I am determined to take steps to improve access to and reporting of family 
proceedings. I am determined that the new Family Court should not be 
saddled, as the family courts are at present, with the charge that we are a 
system of secret and unaccountable justice. Work, commenced by my 
predecessor, is well underway. I hope to be in a position to make important 
announcements in the near future.” 

That applies just as much to the issue of transparency in the Court of 
Protection. 


Very similar issues arise in both the Family Court (as it will be from April 
2014) and the Court of Protection in relation to the need to protect the personal 
privacy of children and vulnerable adults. The applicable rules differ, however, and 
this is something that needs attention. My starting point is that so far as possible the 
same rules and principles should apply in both the family courts (in due course the 
Family Court) and the Court of Protection. 

I propose to adopt an incremental approach. Initially I am issuing this 
Guidance. This will be followed by further Guidance and in due course more formal 
Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and 
the Family Procedure Rules 2010). Changes to primary legislation are unlikely in the 
near future. 

As provided in paragraph 14 below, this Guidance applies only to judgments 
delivered by certain judges. In due course, following the introduction of the Family 
Court, consideration will be given to extending it to judgments delivered by other 
judges (including lay justices). 
The legal framework 

The effect of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 is that it is a 
contempt of court to publish a judgment in a family court case involving children 
unless either the judgment has been delivered in public or, where delivered in private, 
the judge has authorised publication. In the latter case, the judge normally gives 
permission for the judgment to be published on condition that the published version 
protects the anonymity of the children and members of their family.  
10 
In every case the terms on which publication is permitted are a matter for the 
judge and will be set out by the judge in a rubric at the start of the judgment.  
11 
The normal terms as described in paragraph 9 may be appropriate in a case 
where no-one wishes to discuss the proceedings otherwise than anonymously. But 
they may be inappropriate, for example, where parents who have been exonerated in 
care proceedings wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves 
and making use of the judgment. Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where 
findings have been made against a person and someone else contends and/or the judge 
concludes that it is in the public interest for that person to be identified in any 
published version of the judgment. 
12 
If any party wishes to identify himself or herself, or any other party or person, 
as being a person referred to in any published version of the judgment, their remedy is 
to seek an order of the court and a suitable modification of the rubric: Media Access 
& Reporting, para 82; Re RB (Adult) (No 4) [2011] EWHC 3017 (Fam), [2012] 1 FLR 
466, paras [17], [19]. 
13 
Nothing in this Guidance affects the exercise by the judge in any particular 
case of whatever powers would otherwise be available to regulate the publication of 
material relating to the proceedings. For example, where a judgment is likely to be 
used in a way that would defeat the purpose of any anonymisation, it is open to the 
judge to refuse to publish the judgment or to make an order restricting its use.  

Guidance 
14  
This Guidance takes effect from 3 February 2014. It applies  
(i)  
in the family courts (and in due course in the Family Court), to 
judgments delivered by Circuit Judges, High Court Judges and persons 
sitting as judges of the High Court; and 
(ii)  
to all judgments delivered by High Court Judges (and persons sitting as 
judges of the High Court) exercising the inherent jurisdiction to make 
orders in respect of children and incapacitated or vulnerable adults. 
15 
The following paragraphs of this Guidance distinguish between two classes of 
judgment:  
(i)  
those that the judge must ordinarily allow to be published (paragraphs 
16 and 17); and 
(ii)  those 
that 
may be published (paragraph 18). 
16 
Permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge 
concludes that publication would be in the public interest and whether or not a request 
has been made by a party or the media.  
17 
Where a judgment relates to matters set out in Schedule 1 or 2 below and a 
written judgment already exists in a publishable form or the judge has already ordered 
that the judgment be transcribed, the starting point is that permission should be given 
for the judgment to be published unless there are compelling reasons why the 
judgment should not be published. 
SCHEDULE 1 
In the family courts (and in due course in the Family Court), including in 
proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court relating to 
children, judgments arising from: 
(i)  
a substantial contested fact-finding hearing at which serious allegations, 
for example allegations of significant physical, emotional or sexual 
harm, have been determined; 
(ii)  
the making or refusal of a final care order or supervision order under Part 
4 of the Children Act 1989, or any order for the discharge of any such 
order, except where the order is made with the consent of all 
participating parties;  
(iii)   the making or refusal of a placement order or adoption order under the 
Adoption and Children Act 2002, or any order for the discharge of any 
such order, except where the order is made with the consent of all 
participating parties; 

(iv)   the making or refusal of any declaration or order authorising a 
deprivation of liberty, including an order for a secure accommodation 
order under section 25 of the Children Act 1989; 
(v)  
any application for an order involving the giving or withholding of 
serious medical treatment; 
(vi)   any application for an order involving a restraint on publication of 
information relating to the proceedings. 
SCHEDULE 2 
In proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court relating to 
incapacitated or vulnerable adults, judgments arising from: 
(i)  
any application for a declaration or order involving a deprivation or 
possible deprivation of liberty; 
(ii)  
any application for an order involving the giving or withholding of 
serious medical treatment; 
(iii)  
any application for an order that an incapacitated or vulnerable adult be 
moved into or out of a residential establishment or other institution; 
(iv)  
any application for a declaration as to capacity to marry or to consent to 
sexual relations; 
(v)  
any application for an order involving a restraint on publication of 
information relating to the proceedings. 
18 
In all other cases, the starting point is that permission may be given for the 
judgment to be published whenever a party or an accredited member of the media 
applies for an order permitting publication, and the judge concludes that permission 
for the judgment to be published should be given.  
19 
In deciding whether and if so when to publish a judgment, the judge shall have 
regard to all the circumstances, the rights arising under any relevant provision of the 
European Convention on Human Rights, including Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 
8 (respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression), and the effect 
of publication upon any current or potential criminal proceedings. 
20  
In all cases where a judge gives permission for a judgment to be published:  
(i)  
public authorities and expert witnesses should be named in the 
judgment approved for publication, unless there are compelling 
reasons why they should not be so named; 
(ii)  
the children who are the subject of the proceedings in the family 
courts, and other members of their family, and the person who is the 

subject of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High 
Court relating to incapacitated or vulnerable adults, and other members 
of their family, should not normally be named in the judgment 
approved for publication unless the judge otherwise orders; 
(iii)  
anonymity in the judgment as published should not normally extend 
beyond protecting the privacy of the children and adults who are the 
subject of the proceedings and other members of their families, unless 
there are compelling reasons to do so. 
21 
Unless the judgment is already in anonymised form or the judge otherwise 
orders, any necessary anonymisation of the judgment shall be carried out, in the case 
of judgments being published pursuant to paragraphs 16 and 17 above, by the solicitor 
for the applicant in the proceedings and, in the case of a judgment being published 
pursuant to paragraph 18 above, by the solicitor for the party or person applying for 
publication of the judgment. The anonymised version of the judgment must be 
submitted to the judge within a period specified by the judge for approval. The 
version approved for publication will contain such rubric as the judge specifies. 
Unless the rubric specified by the judge provides expressly to the contrary every 
published judgment shall be deemed to contain the following rubric: 
“This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this 
version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what 
is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the 
anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly 
preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure 
that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt 
of court.” 
22 
The judge will need to consider who should be ordered to bear the cost of 
transcribing the judgment. Unless the judge otherwise orders: 
(i)  
in cases falling under paragraph 16 the cost of transcribing the 
judgment is to be at public expense; 
(ii)  
subject to (i), in cases falling under paragraph 17 the cost of 
transcribing the judgment shall be borne equally by the parties to the 
proceedings; 
(iii)  
in cases falling under paragraph 18, the cost of transcribing the 
judgment shall be borne by the party or person applying for publication 
of the judgment. 
23 
In all cases where permission is given for a judgment to be published, the 
version of the judgment approved for publication shall be made available, upon 
payment of any appropriate charge that may be required, to any person who requests a 
copy. Where a judgment to which paragraph 16 or 17 applies is approved for 
publication, it shall as soon as reasonably practicable be placed by the court on the 
BAILII website. Where a judgment to which paragraph 18 applies is approved for 
publication, the judge shall consider whether it should be placed on the BAILII 

website and, if so, it shall as soon as reasonably practicable be placed by the court on 
the BAILII website.