This precedent-setting judgment granted Ms M, a survivor of rape and abuse, permission to publish media articles and speak at events about her experiences of the family justice system and domestic abuse, provided she used an alias to protect the anonymity of her child, C. The judgment emphasised the weight and importance of Ms M’s rights under Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) [17, 58-75], particularly in ensuring public scrutiny of the family courts’ approach to allegations of domestic abuse and parental alienation [5, 9, 15, 59]. The court found a strong public interest in survivors being able to share their lived experiences, highlighting that “Those direct voices can often prove invaluable in ensuring informed discussion and debate” [59]. While acknowledging the need to protect C’s privacy, the court determined that Ms M’s commitment to safeguarding her child’s anonymity mitigated potential risks [64]. Consequently, the court concluded that restricting Ms M’s right to speak publicly would constitute an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with her Convention rights [63-69].
Conversely, the court denied Mr F’s application to publish material or speak publicly about the proceedings, citing the serious risk of harm to Ms M and C; Although Mr F also held Article 10 and 8 rights, the court found that his previous use of social media to harass Ms M and his ongoing disregard for C’s privacy significantly outweighed his right to public expression: “I am satisfied that to permit Mr F to speak publicly about the family proceedings, albeit in an anonymised form, would perpetuate and compound the abuse of Ms M, causing her further significant harm” [72]. Given the high risk of jigsaw identification and the potential for serious interference with C’s Article 8 rights, the court ruled that restricting Mr F’s ability to speak publicly was a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the welfare and privacy of Ms M and C [73, 75].
You can read more about this case’s background here.
Related barristers: Dr Charlotte Proudman
