Judge rules public figure involved in care proceedings case cannot be named

A public figure whose teenage relative was taken into local authority care while on holiday in England before becoming the focus of family court proceedings cannot be named, a judge has ruled.

Social workers intervened about 13 months ago after the boy, who was born in South Africa and is now 16, alleged that he had been assaulted by his mother.

The teenager was taken into “police protection” then placed with foster carers. His mother was arrested.

Sources involved in proceedings estimate that more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money has been spent on the case over the past year – and journalists argued that the public had a right to know the name of the public figure the boy was related to.

But Mr Justice MacDonald decided that the public figure should not be identified after analysing issues at private hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

The judge said, in a written ruling published on Friday, that the case raised issues of “plain public interest”.

But he concluded that it is not in the public interest to allow journalists to reveal the identity of the public figure.

The judge said that the decision he had been asked to make was difficult.

Mr Justice MacDonald said the public figure – a man – was not a party to the proceedings and his conduct had not been called into question.

The judge said there was a risk that naming the public figure might lead to the creation of an information jigsaw which would reveal the boy’s identity.

He said both the boy and the public figure had a human right to respect for private life – a right enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“I have found striking the correct balance in this case to be a particularly difficult and finely balanced exercise,” said Mr Justice MacDonald.

“On balance however … I am satisfied that the proper approach in this case is to … permit the reporting of the facts of this matter subject to the continuing anonymisation of the identity of (the boy), including his relation to (the public figure).”

He added: “The fact that (the relative) is a well-known figure and is covered in the press in other respects does not constitute sufficient reason for interfering in the Article 8 rights of (the boy) or (him) in circumstances where he is not party to proceedings, is not involved in any way in the matters which are the subject of the proceedings and where his conduct and standing has not been called into question within the proceedings.

“The fact that the press may wish to comment on the fact that a relative of (the public figure) is the subject of care proceedings does not constitute a public interest justification in the legal sense capable of overriding the Article 8 rights of (the public figure) or (the boy).”

Mr Justice MacDonald said he thought that the proportionate approach was to “permit discussion of matters of plain public interest by reference to the facts” and allowing the boy and the public figure to remain anonymous.

“(I) recognise that this case raises issues of legitimate public debate concerning care proceedings being instigated in respect of a temporary visitor to the United Kingdom, the length of time those care proceedings were on foot (and) the cost of the same to the taxpayer,” he said.

“In my judgment there is, accordingly, a strong public interest in the press being able to report as freely as possible on these matters.”

Detail of the case had emerged in a preliminary ruling published by another judge – Mr Justice Cobb – in July 2015. Mr Justice Cobb had ruled at that stage that the local authority involved in the case could be identified as the London Borough of Sutton.

Mr Justice MacDonald outlined developments in recent months.

The judge said concerns had been raised about the boy’s mental health.

And he said proceedings had ended after the boy absconded prior to a court hearing and left the UK with his mother.

The judge said the boy had “absconded” from the Royal Courts of Justice complex prior to a hearing in April.

Inquiries revealed that he had gone to the Zimbabwean Embassy in London where he had been joined by his mother.

Mr Justice MacDonald said he had ordered the boy’s passport to be held, had made an order putting ports on alert and had “respectfully requested” the Zimbabwean Embassy not to issue replacement travel documents to the boy.

He said in late April it emerged that the boy and his mother had left the UK – “notwithstanding the existence of the port alert”.

Evidence showed that they travelled to Zimbabwe.

The judge said he had subsequently given lawyers for Sutton council permission to draw the proceedings to a close.

He said evidence that the boy had been “removed from the jurisdiction by his mother despite border controls being put in place” was another public interest factor he had considered when deciding whether the boy’s relative should be named.

Mr Justice MacDonald said he had also received an application “purporting” to be from the boy asking for all reporting restrictions to be lifted – a move which would have allowed the boy, his mother and the public figure to be named.

“The grounds of that application (were) expressed in the following terms,” said the judge.

” ‘Several court injunctions were put in place apparently to protect me by preventing my mother or her solicitor from sharing my case information with anyone outside the court proceedings as well as to prevent the media from reporting my case.

” ‘Based on my horrendous experience while in the care of the London Borough of Sutton I believe it is important that the public gets to know how I suffered.

” ‘I am convinced that the injunctions were put in place to protect the London Borough of Sutton and the courts by preventing the media from educating the public about how children are being unlawfully taken into care and abused and how their parents are silenced by the UK Family Court secrecy laws.

” ‘I researched on all major websites and what is in the media will not do me any harm.

” ‘It is fact raising the awareness of the public regarding my case.

” ‘I am therefore applying to have all … injunctions removed or set aside immediately so that the media can report my case.’ “

The judge rejected the application.

Representatives of the Press Association made a separate application asking the judge to allow the public figure to be named but not the boy.

They argued that naming the public figure would be unlikely to lead to the boy’s identity being revealed.

_{Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved.}