Family Division judge issues ruling on naming of magistrates and legal adviser

The High Court has ruled that magistrates and a legal adviser involved in decisions on the care of a murdered child, Finley Boden, can be named by the media.

Mrs Justice Lieven did not herself name those concerned, but said in her judgement: “The press are entitled to name, if they so wish, both the lay magistrates and the legal adviser who were involved in this case”.

Finley and his sibling Child A had been subject of care proceedings brought by Derbyshire County Council but were returned to their parents following a magistrates hearing in October 2020

Parents Shannon Marsden and Stephen Boden were convicted of Finley’s murder in April 2023.

The BBC, Daily Telegraph and the Press Association had applied to name the magistrates who decided to return the children to their parents, and the legal adviser involved.

Lieven J said that at the October 2020 hearing “all parties…agreed that the children should be transitioned back to the care of the parents.

“The principal issue before the justices was the length of the transition plan. The local authority submitted that the transition period should be four months, and the matter then to come back before the court for final orders to be made if the transition had been successful.”

The Cafcass Guardian though said the children should be full time with their parents within eight weeks.

Lieven J said this had been “a balanced decision of the type that very frequently comes before the Family Court, at whatever level. There was nothing surprising, or in my view inappropriate, about the decision that was made or the process undertaken”.

The judge said she did not find the balance between Article 8 and 10 rights to be complicated.

“On the Article 10 side of the balance, there is significant, and legitimate, public interest in understanding the circumstances of Finley's death,” she said.

She added: “On the Article 8 side of the balance, it is of great importance to protect the privacy of Child A and of those caring for him/her, including the wider family. They have had to deal with the tragic loss of Finley, and the trauma of the criminal trial.”

Lieven J said the role of a judge “requires public accountability and openness” and that even though magistrates were unpaid lay people they were still judges making important decisions that impact on children and families in the most significant way.

“As such, there is no case for their names not to be in the public domain when decisions are made, in the same way as would the names of judges who had made such decisions,” she said.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service had submitted that the legal adviser was its employee and not a member of the judiciary and so should not be named.

But Lieven J said a panel of magistrates could not make a decision without the presence and involvement of a legal adviser, who was “an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.

“As such it appears to me to be right that their names can in principle be placed in the public domain.”

She imposed reporting restrictions preventing the identification of Child A.

Mark Smulian