The debate as to the correct balance between privacy versus transparency in the Family Court will take a further step towards transparency as the transparency pilot in relation to financial remedy proceedings is extended to the High Court last month (November 2024). The pilot enables journalists and legal bloggers to attend and report on financial remedy proceedings, subject to strict rules of anonymity. However, anonymity is not guaranteed, particularly where the parties to the litigation have themselves been seen to "court the press".
Goodman v Walker
A widely reported recent case where these issues have come to the fore is that of Goodman v Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B) in which a Schedule 1 application was brought against Premier League footballer and England vice-captain Kyle Walker by Lauryn Goodman, a celebrity influencer. The case highlights the perils of courting the media for publicity and then trying to use privacy as a means to avoid publication of the details of the case.
Schedule 1 application
Ms Goodman had applied to court for financial provision from Mr Walker for their youngest child, Kinara, who was aged one at the time of the final hearing. The identity of Kinara's father had previously been the cause of some speculation on social media.
While media coverage of the judgment has focused largely on the mother's demands for air conditioning and astroturf for a prospective Lioness, the interesting feature of the case from a legal point of view is how those details came to be in the public domain. During the proceedings, there was an interim order in place preventing the parties from being identified. However, it was the mother's social media posting and media interviews during this time that influenced the decision of HHJ Hess to publish the identification of the parties.
While the substantive decision was not groundbreaking from a legal perspective, HHJ Hess was largely unpersuaded by the mother's claims, which he considered her to have significantly exaggerated and found her to be a witness who was "not reliable" and "often said what she thought would help her case rather than what was true". This is in contrast to what he saw as the more "sensible, honest and reliable" presentation of the father.
Transparency
In terms of reporting proceedings in the family courts, the starting point is that where there are Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 proceedings, the publication of any information relating to the proceedings is prevented by the Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12(1). Further, the publication of any material likely to identify a child involved in the proceedings is prohibited (as per section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989). These provisions can, however, be dispensed with if a disclosure is authorised by the court. The court will carry out a balancing exercise between the Article 8 right to privacy and Article 10 right to freedom of expression. As above, a transparency pilot currently running in several courts permits reporters to report on hearings and have access to specific documents used in the proceedings. However, ordinarily, the court will make a Transparency Order, preventing the parties to the litigation, and any children, from being identified. The intention has been to allow the public to better understand what happens in the Family Court, while protecting the identity of parties who often have to disclose extremely sensitive personal or medical information within proceedings.
In this case, the mother's position was that, if the judgment was to be published at all, it should be anonymised and redacted. Her argument was that this was justified by the need to protect the children's privacy.
Associated Newspapers sought permission to report on the proceedings, without anonymisation. HHJ Hess noted that it was rare for Financial Remedy proceedings, and particularly Schedule 1 proceedings, to be reported without anonymisation. However, huge amounts of detail about the parties, their relationship, the children and the fact of the dispute were already in the public domain, much of it instigated by the mother (who was the one now seeking anonymity). For example, and as cited by the judge, the mother had taken payment from the press to visit the European football championship with her son dressed in an England football shirt with the name ‘Daddy’ on the back and was willingly photographed, following much speculation in the public domain as to her and Walker's relationship.
In those circumstances, the balancing exercise between the Article 8 right to privacy and Article 10 right to freedom of expression came down in favour of free reporting, albeit the parties' addresses and bank details were not to be publicised. Given the amount of detail already published in the media and on social media about the parties and the circumstances they found themselves in, the judge concluded that to try and restrict reporting at this stage would be futile. His view was any damage to the children due to publicity had already been done by the various social media posts already posted and press coverage that had already been published. In the words of HHJ Hess:
It would be a nonsense, opening the court to ridicule, to try to redact or anonymise this judgment to prevent identification of the parties. Further, a perusal of the many hundreds of newspaper articles published about these matters clearly illustrates that the mother has not just cooperated with, but actively instigated, press coverage placing in the public domain her own children, the circumstances of their conceptions and what she thinks about the father…
…For me, the right of the press to scrutinise and comment upon the court’s procedures and decisions, and what the mother has requested of the father and how he has responded, are on this occasion a greater priority.
It is therefore important to consider carefully what information has been and is being put into the public domain and a party's relationship with the media before an application for reporting restrictions is made. Where a figure is in the public eye, posting on social media about aspects of their life may help to develop their "brand" and act as PR, particularly when trying to gain the sympathy or following of members of the public. But this case is a stark reminder that such information being put into the public domain can have unintended consequences in terms of privacy when the parties are engaged in litigation.