Griffiths v Tickle and Others: CA 10 Dec 2021

Appeal against a decision of the High Court that a fact-finding judgment in proceedings under the Children Act 1989 should be published with the names of the father and the mother included, and only relatively modest redactions, primarily aimed at mitigating the impact of publication on the couple’s infant child. The appellant is the father, against whom findings were made. He accepts that the judgment can be published but contends that the interests of the child make it necessary that he, the mother, and the child should all be anonymised and that there should be additional redaction of some details.
Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD said: ‘But the firmly established starting point in the domestic jurisprudence is the principle of open justice. The general rule is that proceedings are held in public and what is said, including the names of the parties and witnesses, can be observed and reported. In a case which involves the ‘determination’ of criminal liability or civil rights and obligations, Article 6 confers on each party to litigation the right to a public hearing and a public judgment.’


Dame Victoria Sharp,
(President of the Queen’S Bench Division),
Lady Justice King,
Lord Justice Warby


[2021] EWCA Civ 1882


Bailii, Judiciary


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions) FC 13-Jun-2022
H sought an order restricting reporting of the divorce financial remedy proceedings, or an anonymity order.
Held: The application was refused save as to identification of the children, and certain tax matters. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Media

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.670460