Privacy, the common law and a celebrity divorce

Court divorce papers: how private?

 

Under the headline ‘Jamie and Louise Redknapp’s divorce papers to be kept secret as a judge blocks the release of documents’ the Transparency Project reported last week-end that a London court had ‘blocked the release of papers that would normally be made public and he has not given a reason why’. The Daily Mail, TP said, had complained: ‘A judge has thrown a blanket of secrecy over the’ couple’s divorce. TP replied resolutely:

 

‘What rubbish. A judge has probably refused to allow the press access to something that they weren’t entitled to in the first place and that they knew and the judge knew and we all know probably contains nothing of… public interest. What do the Family Court rules (FPR) allow the press to see? The short answer can be found in rule 29.12 which basically says – if you aren’t involved in the case you can have nada, unless the judge agrees.’

 

I do not believe the answer is as simple as that. The question of release of these documents involves a legal whirlpool fed by at least three conflicting cross-currents:

 

  • The open justice principle
  • That court rules cannot change existing law or create new law
  • The meaning of ‘privacy’ in 2018

 

Privacy, in the case of a ‘celebrity’ – as Mr and Mrs Redknapp are described – creates its own subsidiary question: to what extent is ‘privacy’ consistent with the symbiotic relationship between press and people like the Redknapps?

 

Open justice principle

 

The common law applies to all aspects of English law, save where it is changed by statute. In R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Article 19 intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618, [2012] 3 WLR 1343 the Court of Appeal considered whether a newspaper could have released to it papers considered by a magistrate’s court district judge in relation to extradition proceedings. The judge said she could not release papers; and the Divisional Court agreed with her.

 

Toulson LJ gave the main judgment in the Court of Appeal which he started as follows:

 

[1] Open justice. The words express a principle at the heart of our system of justice and vital to the rule of law. The rule of law is a fine concept but fine words butter no parsnips. How is the rule of law itself to be policed? It is an age old question. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who will guard the guards themselves? In a democracy, where power depends on the consent of the people governed, the answer must lie in the transparency of the legal process. Open justice lets in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse. Jeremy Bentham said in a well-known passage quoted by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, 477: ‘Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.’

 

Toulson LJ continued

 

[2] This is a constitutional principle which has been recognised by the common law since the fall of the Stuart dynasty, as Lord Shaw explained. It is not only the individual judge who is open to scrutiny but the process of justice…

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied.

 

And in Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697 (a case about anonymity and terrorism) Lord Roger commented:

 

[63] What’s in a name? ‘A lot’, the press would answer. This is because stories about particular individuals are simply much more attractive to readers than stories about unidentified people. It is just human nature. And this is why, of course, even when reporting major disasters, journalists usually look for a story about how particular individuals are affected. Writing stories which capture the attention of readers is a matter of reporting technique, and the European court holds that article 10 protects not only the substance of ideas and information but also the form in which they are conveyed.

 

Press freedom and privacy call for a balance to be struck.

 

Human rights

 

To affirm all this, not only does the common law open justice principle ‘let in the light and allows the public to scrutinise the workings of the law, for better or for worse’ (see Toulson LJ above); but it is demanded by European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 Art 6.1. This requires all court hearings to be in public; but with certain limits. These limits are summarised in the latter part of Art 6.1 as:

 

1 … The press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

 

In English common law the position is best summarised by CPR 1998 r 39.2(3); and for this article it is suggested that these limitations operate for all court proceedings (criminal, civil or family). If a case comes within this list application can be made to claim privacy for any hearing, even though it might otherwise have been heard in public:

 

(3) A hearing, or any part of it, may be in private if –

(a) publicity would defeat the object of the hearing;

(b) it involves matters relating to national security;

(c) it involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality;

(d) a private hearing is necessary to protect the interests of any child or protected party; … or

(g)the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice.

 

Privacy is bolstered by European Convention 1950 Art 8, that: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’.

 

However, the right – countervailing that of privacy – is for all of us, that of ‘freedom of expression’ (Art 10). This protects private individuals, press and social media alike. Thus, ‘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…’.

 

None of these takes priority one over the other (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2005] 1 AC 593, [2005] 1 FLR 591); but it is clear that the courts will generally strongly influenced by the Convention emphasis on freedom of expression (Human Rights Act 1998 s 12(4)).

 

Rules cannot change the law

 

The second cross-current is that a court rule cannot change the law. Family proceedings are governed by Family Procedure Rules 2010 which are written by a group of civil servants and practising lawyers (given powers to do so by Courts Act 2003 ss 75-76). They are not considered by MPs but are dealt with by the negative resolution procedure (Courts Act 2003 s 79).

 

The aim of the rules is to define how courts should apply the law (procedure). Whether or not documents (eg a divorce petition) should be released to a non-party is an example. If a rule says something different from the common law, the rule is wrong; and there is certainly nothing in those rules ‘expressly permitting’ that the rule makers can alter common law principles.

 

That this is not possible, constitutionally, is confirmed by for example Dunhill v Burgin (Nos 1 and 2) [2014] UKSC 18, [2014] 1 WLR 933 where Lady Hale in the Supreme Court said:

 

[27] Neither the Rules of the Supreme Court nor the Civil Procedure Rules can change the substantive law unless expressly permitted so to do by statute: see Re Grosvenor Hotel Ltd (No 2) [1965] Ch 1210.

 

Generally proceedings under FPR 2010 are heard in private (FPR 2010 r 27.10); unless the rules say something else. Proceedings under FPR 2010 Pt 7 (mostly for divorce) are to be heard in open court (r 7.16(1)), save in the circumstances listed in r 7.16(3) (which provides a list similar to CPR 1998 r 39.2(3)) which sets out when court hearings, otherwise open, may be in private.

 

This is openness subject to the condition that only certain information may be publicised by the printed press (publisher or printer) Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 s 1(1)(b). But what is meant here by a ‘hearing’ and, subject to that, what documents can be released to those who attend court?

 

A side comment on this is provided by r 29.12(2). If there has been a hearing in open court anyone can ask for a copy of the order made. In the case of divorce proceedings this is unremarkable. A divorce order is in rem: it speaks to the world. This tells us nothing about whether, for example, a journalist can obtain a couple’s divorce petition and if so, to what extent his or her newspaper can publish anything.

 

If the journalist can obtain documents – as could the Guardian in the Westminster Magistrates’ case – is it consistent with the right to respect for a couple’s private life that they should be allowed to publish (European Convention 1950 Art 8.1; Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457)? If no, does it make any difference that one or both of the couple concerned are ‘celebrities’ (ie spend much of their life developing a symbiotic relations ship with the press, as in Naomi Campbell’s case)? Probably not; but this is part of a much wider subject, and must be the subject of a separate later article. In the meantime, what can be released to non-parties: that is to anyone who is not a party to the proceedings?

 

Divorce papers and release of hearing documents

 

What court documents – such as divorce papers which set out why one party says he or she should not have to live with the other – should be permitted for release? The law is unclear on this (as explained in my ‘Release of family courts hearing documents’).

 

Here an odd statutory side-wind blows in. Even if a journalist sits in court for a divorce (and very few divorces are ever heard in open court, since only defended divorces involve a full hearing) he or she still cannot publish any but the most basic information about the proceedings. A little known statute – Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (considered more fully here) – at s 1(1)(b) says that a newspaper or printer who publishes anything about a divorce except basic information (such as names, addresses etc of the parties and details of legal argument and judgement), may be prosecuted (if the Attorney-General agrees). This was at a time when radio (‘wireless’ as it was then) journalism was little known; and television and social media not dreamed of. Only print media are caught by s 1(1)(b). It does not catch the rest of us nor other media.

 

What we know so far is that court orders can be released and that court hearings are in open court. The law is that a non-party – such as the Mail – must apply for documents. This was established by the Guardian v Westminster case; and backed up by NAB v Serco Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 1225 (QB), Bean J. If application is made, the Mail must explain why it wants the documents. As Toulson LJ (with whom Lord Neuberger LJ and Hooper LJ agreed):

 

[85] In a case where documents have been placed before a judge and referred to in the course of proceedings, in my judgment the default position should be that access should be permitted on the open justice principle; and where access is sought for a proper journalistic purpose, the case for allowing it will be particularly strong. However, there may be countervailing reasons…. The court has to carry out a proportionality exercise which will be fact-specific. Central to the court’s evaluation will be the purpose of the open justice principle, the potential value of the material in advancing that purpose and, conversely, any risk of harm which access to the documents may cause to the legitimate interests of others.

 

It may be worth adding that as Hooper LJ pointed out (at [95]), the position on disclosure in criminal proceedings (then Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 r 5.8(7) now 2015 r 5.7(5)) is:

 

If the court so directs, the court officer will— (a) supply to the applicant, by word of mouth, other information about the case; or (b) allow the applicant to inspect or copy a document, or part of a document, containing information about the case.

 

This is supplemented, as Hooper LJ points out, by a note that the supply of information may be affected by European Convention 1950 Arts 6, 8 and 10 ‘and the court’s duty to have regard to the importance of— (i) dealing with criminal cases in public, and (ii) allowing a public hearing to be reported to the public’. It will be recalled that, as ever, it is the same common law which regulate criminal and family proceedings.

 

If the Mail gets them, they cannot print more than names, addresses and the judgment. So far as rules say anything else – eg that non-parties cannot even apply for documents or information (which some judges think is what the law says) – the rules are unlawful. Guardian v Westminster makes it clear that the court must consider any application and deal with it on its merits and according to the individual facts of the case. In the case of the Redknapps the district judge had to make deal with the application and give reasons for his decision (FPR 2010 r 27.2(3)).

 

Privacy and the ‘celebrity’ divorce

 

The basis for that district judge decision brings in the final cross-current: privacy. This is a relatively new principle of English law, derived partly from our common law rules about confidentiality and partly from European Convention 1950 law. It was most famously considered in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457 when Naomi Campbell was photographed leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting; and the House held (3:2) that her privacy had been breached. Secretly the Mirror had arranged for photos to be taken of her. These were published them with further stories about her drug habit (which up till then she had publicly denied). She was awarded £3,500 damages.

 

The House asked: what privacy was she entitled to expect, even as a very public person (‘celebrity’) and although the Mirror were putting the record straight on her drug habit. Despite these two points, there was an extent to which she could expect privacy said the two lords and a lady. If I were asked I would say the Redknapps were entitled to privacy with their divorce papers; and that the district judge could say so.

Advertisements

RIGHT TO PUBLISH WARDSHIP CASES: HOW FAR?

Publicity: further scope for a criminal charge

 

Journalists may have been allowed by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, into the High Court in the recent, well publicised, wardship hearing before Baker J, concerning parents who removed their child – ‘Andrew’ let us say – from a Hampshire hospital against medical advice. But does that give them full permission – and any right – to report on the proceedings? If they or anyone else publishes information about the proceedings to what extent do they risk a criminal offence?

 

Rights of all concerned – the child (whose welfare is paramount), the press, the parents and other members of Andrew’s family – must all be balanced before a decision is made by the court to ‘open’ the proceedings (see explanation in the context of the House of Lords case of Re S below); and to permit the overriding of the criminal consequences of Children Act 1989 (‘CA’) s 97(6). The blushes (if any) of the police, of the hospital, of the local authority (who, whether lawfully or not, applied for the wardship order – see http://wp.me/4jaDx ) or of the family justice system are not part of that rights balance.

 

To my knowledge, no order nor any judgement of Sir James has been published (there is nothing on the BAILII website either for his or the 29 August judgements); so we do not know how he conducted the rights balance. Why, for example, did he think that publicity would serve the welfare of the ward, Andrew? How did he deal with Andrew’s welfare requirements under Children Act 1989 (‘CA 1989’) s 97 (see below).

 

Permitting anyone to attend court is one thing. What is published concerning the case – eg in the press or other media – is altogether another. Judges like Sir James, have been at pains in the past (see as Munby J eg Princess Diana’s brother’s case: Spencer v Spencer [2009] EWHC 1529 (Fam), Munby J) to stress that it is not for judge’s to advise journalists what they can publish; and it will not be Sir James – or it should not be – who deals with any criminal (CA 97(6)) or contempt (Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12) proceedings by anyone affected by the publicity which there has been.

 

What can be published, even though the press etc is let in?

 

So the court was ‘open’ (we all assume; though we have yet to learn the terms), but does that let those present – or any of the rest of us who have information about the case – merely publish whatever and as we see fit? I do not know what newspaper’s advice is to their journalists. Certain it is, alongside this, that the family law system has got itself into a complicated – needlessly, I should say – muddle over publicity for family proceedings (see eg http://wp.me/p4jaDx-68 ). Andrew’s case does little to help that.

 

Almost exactly a year ago Sir James Munby P, in a case reported as Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/2694.html) defended the right of individuals aggrieved by the family courts process to post their grievances on the internet, even when expressed by them in ‘vigorous, trenchant or outspoken terms’. The President set his colours to a mast he has powerfully – and rightly, in the appropriate context – erected: ‘there is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system’.

 

In Re J he set out the legislative restrictions on publicity a then goes on to explain the importance to the family justice system that it should receive publicity. He starts by pointing out the ‘automatic constraints’ on publicity.

 

CA 1989 s 97 (prohibits publication, but only till the conclusion of proceedings (Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2006] 1 FLR 11)). The prohibition in s 97 relates to any children proceedings and prevents publication which will identify the child or certain details about him (s 97(2)). It can only be overridden by specific order of the court that information can be published which identifies the child, and if the court has found ‘that the welfare of the child [concerned] requires’ publicity (s 97(4)). We await hearing what Sir James said on this point (which is in line with his European Convention 1950 duties under Re S). Section 97(6) creates a criminal offence if it is breached.

 

The more long-lasting and over-arching AJA 1960 s 12 provides as follows:

 

(1) The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except in the following cases, that is to say –

(a)where the proceedings –

(i)relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors;

(ii)are brought under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or

(iii)otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;

 

The section relates to ‘proceedings in private’, including family proceedings, but narrows those proceedings to those in relation to children, wardship etc. It is still the case that it may be contempt to publish information from such proceedings: this is the effect of the series of negatives by which the section is drafted. The person who wishes to publish must make up his or her own mind.

 

Relaxing the restraints on publicity

 

In Re J Sir James says simply (at para [22]) that ‘the court has power both to relax and to add to the “automatic [ie statutory] restraints”’. He does not state his authority in law for this. To ‘relax’ the restraints, as Sir James explains, the court must conduct a balancing exercise within European Convention 1950 terms, as explained by Lord Steyn in the House of Lords in Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47 (at para [17]). It is ‘necessary to measure the nature of the impact … on the child’ of what is in prospect, said Lord Steyn.

 

So, said Sir James, the interests of the child must be a primary consideration (ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 at para [33]). The balance must be drawn between respect for the child’s private life (Art 8) and the right of the press and a parent or others who might want (as in Re J) to publicise information (Art 10). Was this balancing exercise conducted by Sir James when he made his order in Andrew’s case, and if so in what terms? We do not yet know.

 

In conducting that balancing exercise, the primacy of the best interests of the child must be considered. This was further explained in the Supreme Court in (not considered by Sir James) H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (Official Solicitor intervening) [2012] UKSC 25 where Lord Kerr said:

 

[144] … It is unquestioned that in each of these cases, the children’s article 8 rights are engaged. As a matter of logical progression, therefore, one must first recognise the interference and then consider whether the interference is justified. This calls for a sequencing of, first, consideration of the importance to be attached to the children’s rights (by obtaining a clear-sighted understanding of their nature), then an assessment of the degree of interference and finally addressing the question whether extradition justifies the interference….

[145] ….no factor must be given greater weight than the interests of the child.

 

Like ZH, H(H) related to children in immigration proceedings (ie not involved with publicity), but the principles in relation to the interests of children are parallel.

 

Court promoting publicity

 

The court was not entitled, in this jurisdiction, said Sir James in Re J, to seek to prevent dissemination. But what – as in Andrew’s case – is the court’s role in encouraging ‘dissemination’ of information (if this was any intention of Sir James: his order and judgement will show)? Where is the primacy of Andrew’s interest in dissemination (if that was the aim), and of justification for interference with Andrew’s right to respect for his family life (Article 8)? Who (if anyone) applied for the relaxation of publicity, and on what terms?

 

Word from Sir James is awaited. In the meantime if I was thinking of publishing anything about Andrew I would look very carefully at CA 1989 s 97 and AJA s 12(1) see if overriding those statutory provisions is covered by Sir James’s order. The police have been involved in this case too much. Their further involvement under Children Act 1989 s 97(6) must be avoided.

‘TRANSPARENCY’: NOT ALL ABOUT CHILDREN: publicity after Cooper-Hohn

Case management, publicity and Cooper-Hohn v Hohn

The judgement of Roberts J in Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 2314 (Fam) raises important questions about publicity in financial remedy proceedings. The judge found herself required to give ‘a case management’ decision in a substantial money case where ‘accredited members of the press have been present, as they are fully entitled to be’ (FPR 2010 r 27.11(2)(f)). The question for her was: ‘[2].. the extent to which [the press] should be able to report an account of the proceedings as they unfold on a daily basis and whether there is any restriction on their ability to do so.’ The press were separately represented. Application was made for reporting restrictions to be lifted.

Roberts J refused to impose full reporting restrictions (as Mr Hohn wanted) but restricted the press, on terms which were less than Mrs Cooper-Hohn want, as follows (para 98 of her judgement):

The media shall be prohibited from publishing any such report that refers to or concerns any of the parties’ financial information whether of a personal or business nature including, but not limited to, that contained in their voluntary disclosure, answers to questionnaire provided in solicitors’ correspondence, in their witness statements, in their oral evidence or referred to in submissions made on their behalf, whether in writing or orally, save to the extent that any such information is already in the public domain.

Roberts J describes her job (at para 61) on reporting restrictions as ‘to find a way through somewhat rocky terrain where, as everybody appears to agree, there is no clear roadmap’. She concluded – looking at her decision through the prism of European Convention 1950 Art 8 (respect for private life) and 10 (press freedom); and perhaps Art 6(1) (right to a fair trial; administration of justice) – that she should make the restriction order (above). She resolved the parties and the press’s Convention rights as follows:

[176] I find that the balance between the right of the media to freedom of expression and their ability to report to the public at large, and the right of the husband and wife to respect for their private and family life, in so far as it relates to the detail of their finances, weighed together with the overarching principle of open justice and the implied undertaking as to confidentiality, falls firmly in favour of privacy in relation to financial matters being maintained.

A guide through ‘rocky terrain’: start from the common law

This article attempts to provide a guide through the ‘rocky terrain’ – limited to financial remedy proceedings – for what ultimately is a matter of judicial discretion based on the common law and a European Convention 1950 proportionality balance. I shall suggest here that the best starting point is the common law, as summarised most succinctly in Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 39.2.

First it is important to be clear as to the threefold categorisation of family proceedings: (1) those governed solely by the common law (civil proceedings and a minority of family proceedings); (2) financial remedy proceedings; and (3) proceedings governed by Administration of Justice Act 1960 s 12(1) (‘AJA 1960’: children proceedings: their welfare, maintenance and upbringing). Most aspects of (2) are subsumed in principles derived from (1); and children issues under AJA 1960 s 12(1) are likely to be rare in financial remedy proceedings.

The starting point is the common law rule that all proceedings should be in public (Scott & Anor v Scott [1913] UKHL 2, [1913] AC 417 where contempt committal orders for publication of nullity proceedings were set aside by the House of Lords). Publication on its own is not to be punished ‘unless it can be established to the satisfaction of the court to whom the application is made that the publication constitutes an interference with the administration of justice either in the particular case to which the publication relates or generally’ said Lord Scarman in Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440 at 469. This position is reflected in European Convention 1950 Art 6(1), which states that: ‘In a determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing…’. CPR 1998 r 39.2(1) asserts: ‘The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public’.

This ‘open justice principle’ and its place in the common law was explained by Toulson LJ in R (ota Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, [2013] QB 618 as:

[69] The open justice principle is a constitutional principle to be found not in a written text but in the common law. It is for the courts to determine its requirements, subject to any statutory provision. It follows that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to determine how the principle should be applied.

Family proceedings hearings ‘in private’

Confusion in proceedings covered by FPR 2010 arises from the fact that FPR 2010 r 27.10(1) asserts that all proceedings under FPR 2010 shall be held ‘in private’. This suggests that there is a presumption of privacy for family hearings. The common law and Convention jurisprudence provides the opposite. Privacy must be justified: Scott v Scott; Attorney General v Leveller (above), save in proceedings to which AJA 1960 s 12 applies. Nor is it clear on what underlying legal principle, statute or common law, the rule-makers derive their rules on attendance at private hearings (FPR 2010 r 27.11), especially of the press (‘accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations’: r 27.11(1)(f)).

If tested it seems unlikely that FPR 2010 rr 27.10 and 27.11 would be found to be intra vires any established principle of law or Convention principle. Convention jurisprudence which is the starting point for any restraint on publicity (Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, [2004] 2 AC 593 per Lord Steyn at [23]). Of the status of rules as law: rules ‘cannot extend the jurisdiction of the court from that which the law provides, but can only give directions as to how the existing jurisdiction should be exercised’ (Jaffray v The Society of Lloyds [2007] EWCA Civ 586, per Buxton LJ at [8]).

When in contempt of court?

This note therefore proceeds on the basis that, other than in proceedings covered by AJA 1960 s 12, any restriction of publicity, whether as to attendance at a hearing or of the reporting of a hearing, must be justified in law. Exceptions set up by the common law relate to the hearing of proceedings and, separately, to the documents in those proceedings and their ‘use’. These exceptions are set out in CPR 1998 rr 39.2(3) and 31.22(1). The first rule provides that a hearing may be partly or entirely in private where, for example, ‘publicity would defeat the object of the hearing’ (r 39.2(3)(a); see eg the Leveller Magazine case (above)); the case ‘involves confidential information (including information relating to personal financial matters) and publicity would damage that confidentiality’ (r 39.2(3)(c)) which might have applied in Cooper-Hohn); and ‘the court considers this to be necessary, in the interests of justice’ (r 39.2(3)(g)).

A separate jurisdiction also arises from the question of whether documents in proceedings may be further ‘used’ by parties or others; though the principles on which the court decides ‘use’ questions and the publication of proceedings overlap. CPR 1998 r 31.22 provides:

(1) A party to whom a document has been disclosed may use the document only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it is disclosed, except where –
(a) the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public;
(b) the court gives permission; or
(c) the party who disclosed the document and the person to whom the document belongs agree.
(2) The court may make an order restricting or prohibiting the use of a document which has been disclosed, even where the document has been read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing which has been held in public.

There is no equivalent to rr 39.2 or 31.22 in FPR 2010. The court has a separate power to restrict the use of parties’ names (CPR 1998 r 39.2(4) which was at issue in eg W v M (TOLATA Proceedings; Anonymity) [2012] EWHC 1679 (Fam), Mostyn J.)

Publicity in financial remedy proceedings

Issues of publicity for a hearing or of documents therefore arise in financial remedy proceedings in the following contexts:

(1) Whether there should be any restriction on the open court principle (ie full publicity) for financial proceedings (r 39.2(3));
(2) Whether a document made available as part of the court disclosure process should be permitted to be ‘used’ separately from the proceedings (r 31.22(1)(b));
(3) Whether such a document has been referred to in open court proceedings (r 31.22(1)(a)); or
(4) Even if (3) applies, whether a party can be restrained from use of the document.

The comment of Stanley Burnton LJ in Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315, [2011] 1 FLR 1427 provides a starting point:

[76] Parties to a matrimonial dispute who bring before the Court the facts and documents relating to their financial affairs may in general be assured that the confidentiality of that information will be respected. They are required by the Court to produce the information and documents, and it is a general principle, applicable to both civil and family proceedings, that confidential information produced by those who are compelled to do so will remain so unless and until it passes into the public domain. That confidence will in an appropriate case be protected by the anonymisation of any reported judgment.

Reporting of hearings in open court

CPR 1998 r 39.2(3) provides a list of exceptions to the general open court rule, though it is only very rarely referred to in family proceedings. A search of Family Law Online reveals references to the rule only because it applies to civil proceedings in any event (eg Harb v King Fahd Bin [2005] EWCA Civ 632, [2008] FLR 1108; though in DE v AB [2014] EWCA Civ 1064 Ryder LJ dealt with privacy without any reference to r 39(3)). In Allan v Clibbery [2002] EWCA Civ 45, [2002] 1 FLR 565 Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P mentioned CPR 1998 r 39.2 briefly at [28]. The issue in Hohn, for example, related to attendance in court and reporting. The case could have been disposed of on principles under r 39.2(3)(c).

‘Use’ of documents following the court proceedings

Rule 31.22 deals with documents which are sought to be made ‘use’ of after a hearing (se eg Ms Clibbery’s publication of Mr Allan’s documents in Allan v Clibbery (above)). Where documents have been produced by a party because of the requirements of disclosure they remain confidential in any civil proceedings unless they have been ‘referred to… in public’ or the court permits their ‘use’ by third parties (r 31.22(1)). A further question (outside the scope of this note) is: does the court have power, on its own initiative, to order release of documents to third parties (eg HMRC): in A v A; B v B [2000] 1 FLR 701, Charles J concluded that he could find no authority which prevented him from so doing, and made orders for release accordingly.

Documents which are disclosed, under what amounts to compulsion, can only be used for the proceedings in which they are disclosed. Such disclosure has been treated as being subject to an ‘implied undertaking’ that they will not be used for any purpose other than the proceedings. Rule 31.22(1) is intended as a release from this undertaking (SmithKline Beeecham plc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1109 at [28]). The undertaking and thus the obligation not to use documents is owed to the court (Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Fountain Page Ltd and Another [1991] 1 WLR 756 per Hobhouse J at 774H). A party may apply to publicise or otherwise to release – to ‘use’ – such documents r 31.22(1)(b).

Has a document has been referred to in open court proceedings

If a document has been referred to or read in open court it can be released (eg published in the press), subject to any r 31.22(1) order. The principle of openness remains the starting point: see eg Lilly Icos v Pfizer Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 2:

… [25] (iv) simple assertions of confidentiality and of the damage that will be done by publication, even if supported by both parties, should not prevail. The court will require specific reasons why a party would be damaged by the publication of a document.

In Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA v Connaught Laboratories Inc [1999] EWCA Civ 1781, [1999] 4 All ER 498 Lord Bingham LCJ explained the significance of ‘read to or by the court, or referred to, at a hearing’ in CPR 1998 r 31.22(1)(a). These applications are like to be resolved (see eg Allan v Clibbery) on principles akin to an application for privacy of proceedings. Under r 31.22(2) a party may apply restriction of release of read documents (r 31.22(2)) as Mr Allan tried unsuccessfully to do.

Release of documents to a third party

A third party (such as HMRC) can apply for release to them of documents disclosed in proceedings (ie covered by the implied undertaking), or for documents referred to in private proceedings to be released (r 31.22(1)(b)) often for use in separate proceedings. In Tchenguiz v Director SFO [2014] EWHC 1315 (TCC), Eder J reviewed the law on giving of permission for release of such documents. Each case, he emphasised, turns on its own facts (Crest Homes v Marks [1987] AC 829 at 860). The public interest in the truth and making full disclosure ‘operates in favour of releasing relevant documents from hub into satellite proceedings’ (SmithKline Beecham Plc v Generics (UK) Ltd [2004] 1 WLR 1479 at [36]). He concluded that ‘the public interest in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud [will outweigh] the general concern of the courts to control the collateral use of documents produced compulsorily on disclosure’ (Marlwood Commercial Inc v Kozeny [2005] 1 WLR 104, CA at [47], [52]; but see eg Y v Z [2014] EWHC 650 (Fam), where Bodey J refused a mother’s appeal that she could produce evidence of the father’s lies to the CPS and the Financial Conduct Authority and contrast A v A; B v B (above)).

Conclusion

A number of the principles which arise here – and which arose in the Cooper-Hohn interim hearing – cross over from (say) an initial application for a case to be in private (CPR 1998 r 39.2(3); ie to lift restrictions on publicity in financial remedy proceedings) to the separate question of whether the court gives permission for use of documents otherwise restricted from release by their having been disclosed but not referred to in court. The first point for any applicant under these areas of law is to be clear into which category of publication of a hearing or release of documents the application arises, and then to apply the principles outlined above to the application in question.