Re X, Y and Z (children) (anonymity: identity of expert) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 143 (May)
In order to exercise the “restraint” jurisdiction to prevent an expert’s identity the expert had to show a convincing case for an injunction or, he had to show a compelling social need for a judge’s interference with the Art 10 Convention rights of the media. It was not for the family court, by controlling the information it allowed to be disseminated, to seek to control the disciplinary procedures. If there was a problem it was a problem to be solved by others—by the General Medical Council, by the medical profession, by Parliament—not by the family court controlling the information it allowed to be disseminated or the form in which it allowed such information to be disseminated.
It would be appropriate for every tribunal, when making what it believed to be a final order in proceedings under the Children Act 1989, to consider whether or not there was an outstanding welfare issue which needed to be addressed by a continuing order for anonymity.
