References: Times 15-May-2001, 36337/97, 35974/97, (2002) 34 EHRR 529, [2001] 2 FLR 261, [2001] ECHR 295, [1999] ECHR 179
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Ratio The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were affected, the rules allowed application for their admission to the proceedings, and leave could also be sought to disclose the results of the proceedings to named parties. Custody and contact disputes were prime examples of situations where exclusion of the press and public could be justified to protect the interests of the child and parties to the case: ‘such proceedings are prime examples of cases where the exclusion of the press and public may be justified in order to protect the privacy of the child and parties and to avoid prejudicing the interests of justice. To enable the deciding judge to gain as full and accurate a picture as possible of the advantages and disadvantages of the various residence and contact options open to the child, it is essential that the parents and other witnesses feel able to express themselves candidly on highly personal issues without fear of public curiosity or comment . . to pronounce the judgment in public would, to a large extent, frustrate these aims.’ Parties were expected to be candid and open about events, and that would be threatened if proceedings were held in public.
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
This case cites:
- Appeal from – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 510, (1997) 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765)
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Kent County Council -v- The Mother, The Father, B (By Her Children’s Guardian); Re B (A Child) (Disclosure) FD ([2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), Bailii, [2004] 2 FLR 142, [2004] EWHC Fam 411, [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 303)
The council had taken the applicant’s children into care alleging that the mother had harmed them. In the light of the subsequent cases casting doubt on such findings, the mother sought the return of her children. She applied now that the hearings . . - Appealed to – P-B (a Minor) (child cases: hearings in open court) CA (Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 510, (1997) 1 All ER 58, [1996] 2 FLR 765)
The applicant sought to have his application for a residence order heard in open court: ‘Article 6 (1) provides for the public hearing and the public pronouncement of judgment of cases, but with the proviso of exclusion of the press and the public . . - Cited – Pelling -v- Bruce-Williams, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening CA ((2004) 2 FLR 823, Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 845, [2004] 3 All ER 875)
The applicant sought an order that his application for a joint residence order should be held in public.
Held: Though there was some attractiveness in the applicant’s arguments, the issue had been fully canvassed by the ECHR. The time had come . . - Cited – A -v- British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC ([2015] 1 AC 588, 2014 SC (UKSC) 151, 2014 SCLR 593, Bailii, [2014] UKSC 25, [2014] 2 All ER 1037, 2014 GWD 15-266, [2014] WLR(D) 196, [2014] 2 WLR 1243, [2014] EMLR 25, 2014 SLT 613, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2013/0159, SC Summary, SC)
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 17-May-16
Ref: 166087