Transparency and the scope of PD12R FPR 2010

A Local Authority v A Mother & Ors [2025] EWHC 3498 (Fam)

This judgment of Mrs Justice Lieven, handed down on 2 December 2025, concerns the scope of a Transparency Order in ongoing care proceedings and, in particular, whether an NHS hospital trust may be named in press reporting without imperilling the anonymity and welfare of a child.

The underlying proceedings arise from an application by a local authority for a care order in circumstances where it is alleged that a young child was subjected to fabricated or induced illness (FII) during hospital treatment. The issue was confined to media access and reporting rights following an application by The Sunday Times under the (relatively) newly operative Practice Direction 12R, which establishes a presumption in favour of journalistic reporting of family proceedings, subject always to the protection of children’s anonymity.

Two points divided the parties: first, whether Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust(“the Trust”) should be named; and secondly, whether reporting could include reference to one aspect of the child’s treatment, namely treatment “via lines”. The parents and the Children’s Guardian supported the media application. The local authority and the Trust opposed naming the hospital.

The judgment provides a careful and structured exposition of the applicable legal framework. Statutory reporting restrictions under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 were set against the Convention rights engaged, notably Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). 

Of particular note is the court’s treatment of open justice in the family context. Mrs Justice Lieven rejected the submission that naming the Trust impermissibly shifted scrutiny from the court to the wider healthcare system. On the facts, the proposed reporting bore a clear nexus to the operation of the family courts in FII cases, including the testing of expert evidence and the consequences for family life.

The risk of “jigsaw identification” was recognised but held to be limited. The scale and national prominence of the Trust, coupled with strict prohibitions on identifying medical detail, meant that the likelihood of the general public identifying the child was low. The court reiterated that the mere fact that a small cohort of insiders might speculate as to identity is not, of itself, a sufficient basis to curtail Article 10 rights.

The court also dismissed concerns about potential demonstrations and prejudice to any police investigation as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

In conclusion, the balance fell decisively in favour of transparency. The Trust could be named, and reference to treatment permitted. The judgment is significant both as an early application of PD12R and as a clear affirmation that, in appropriate cases, public interest in scrutiny of FII allegations and family court decision-making will justify robust reporting, provided the child’s anonymity is preserved.

Edward Lamb KC and Tara Vindis of Deka Chambers acted for A Mother, instructed by Tom Trim of Osbornes Law.