Open Justice, Free Speech and Privacy

Every parent has a voice, and every child has a right to privacy. When the two collide, neither wins automatically. Article 10, the Family Court's reporting rules, and why they matter.

Edition 8, first published 26 October 2026.

Yesterday, in Edition 7, I wrote about faith and belief, and why a court never picks a religion. Today’s right is the one every campaigner, every journalist and every parent with a story relies on: the right to speak.

Picture a dad in the car park outside the Family Court. He has just been told he’ll see his child less. He believes the hearing was unfair. He’s angry, he’s heartbroken, and he wants the world to know. He takes out his phone.

Before he presses “post”, he needs to know two things: what Article 10 gives him, and what the law around the Family Court asks of him in return.

What the right says

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, says:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

Then come the limits:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society... for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

What it means in plain English

Article 10 protects your right to hold an opinion, to find things out, and to say what you think. That includes criticising the courts, Cafcass, the police and the law itself. Campaigning to change the system is exactly what it is there for.

But it comes with “duties and responsibilities”. It can be limited, by law, where that is necessary, including to protect the rights of others. In a family case, the “others” is nearly always a child.

Parliament has also told the courts to take free speech seriously. Under section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act, a court deciding whether to restrict publication “must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression”.

How it applies in the Family Court

Most children cases are heard in private. The Family Procedure Rules say proceedings “will be held in private”, unless the rules or the court say otherwise. The public can’t just walk in.

Publishing what happens in a private children case can be contempt of court. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 makes it contempt to publish information relating to private proceedings brought under the Children Act 1989, or otherwise about a child’s upbringing. Contempt is serious. It can mean a fine, or prison.

Identifying the child is a criminal offence. Section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 says no one may publish “to the public at large or any section of the public” any material “intended, or likely, to identify” a child as being involved in the proceedings, or their address or school. A public post on social media is publishing. You don’t have to name the child to break it: anything likely to identify them counts, and the protection lasts while the case goes on.

But the doors are opening. Since 27 January 2025, open reporting provisions have applied in family courts across England and Wales, after a pilot that began in Leeds, Carlisle and Cardiff in January 2023. Accredited journalists and legal bloggers can report what they see and hear in court if a transparency order is made, and there is now a presumption that one will be. They can ask to see some documents, and they can speak to, and quote, the people involved. The order protects the anonymity of the children and their families. It was rolled out in steps: public law cases first, private law cases from 1 May 2025, and cases heard by magistrates from 29 September 2025.

The ultimate balancing test. The leading case on how free speech and privacy are weighed against each other is Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47. An eight-year-old boy’s mother was about to stand trial for murder. His guardian asked the High Court to stop newspapers naming her, or printing photographs of her or of his older brother who had died, to protect the boy from the fallout.

Lord Steyn, with whom the other Law Lords agreed, set out four propositions. “First, neither article has as such precedence over the other.” Second, where the two rights clash, “an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary”. Third, the reasons for restricting each right must be weighed. Finally, proportionality must be applied to each. “For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test.”

In that case, free speech won. The boy wasn’t part of the criminal trial, and its impact on him was “essentially indirect”. “A criminal trial is a public event,” Lord Steyn said. No injunction was granted.

In the Family Court the balance starts in a different place, because the child is at the centre of the case, and Parliament has written the child’s privacy into the law. Neither right wins automatically. That cuts both ways.

Why it matters for equality and children

Justice behind closed doors breeds suspicion. Many fathers come out of the Family Court feeling unheard, and many mothers do too. When proper, anonymised reporting lets the public see how decisions are really made, everyone gains: the parents, the judges, and public trust in the system.

But a child’s privacy belongs to the child. Not to the court. Not to either parent. A child named online today can be found online for the rest of their life. They didn’t choose to be part of your case.

What you can do

• Campaign on the system, not the child. Talk about the law, the process, and what needs to change. Never post a child’s name, photo, school or address, or anything likely to identify them.

• If it came from a private children hearing, stop before you post. Sections 12 and 97 are real, and the risk is yours. If you’re not sure, don’t publish. Take legal advice first.

• Know the official route. If an accredited journalist or legal blogger attends, the transparency order decides what can be reported, and by whom. Read it, and follow it.

• Read the published judgments. Many family judgments are published in anonymised form on the National Archives’ Find Case Law service and on BAILII. They show how the law really works.

• Ask your MP one question. How will the government make sure every family court is open to proper, anonymised reporting, so families can see justice being done?

This series is general information, not legal advice.

Sources

• ECHR, Article 10 (official text): https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

• Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Article 10: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9

• Human Rights Act 1998, s.12(4): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12

• Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.27.10(1): https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/family/parts/part_27

• Administration of Justice Act 1960, s.12(1)(a): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/65/section/12

• Children Act 1989, s.97(2): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/97

• Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.14(1) (committal up to two years in a superior court): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/14

• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, “Open reporting provisions extended to all family courts in ‘watershed moment for family justice’”, 27 January 2025: https://www.judiciary.uk/open-reporting-provisions-extended-to-all-family-courts-in-watershed-moment-for-family-justice/

• Practice Direction 12R (FPR), paras 1.3 and 3.1–3.3: https://www.justice.gov.uk/practice-direction-12r-the-court-giving-permission-to-communicate-information-from-proceedings-to-which-part-12-fpr-applies

• Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, 28 October 2004, paras 4–5, 8, 17, 25, 30 and 38 (Lord Steyn): https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/47.html

• The National Archives, Find Case Law: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Charley Bickers, Founder of UN For Men - The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys

[Subscribe on Substack button]

The United Global Alliance For Men & Boys is not part of, affiliated with, or endorsed by the United Nations. UN for Men is our campaign for a dedicated UN body for men and boys.