Henke J. Procedural judgment in children proceedings reaffirming legal protections for journalistic sources and highlighting the limits of transparency in the family courts.

Henke J delivered a discrete procedural judgment following a fact-finding hearing on 2 May 2025 in private law proceedings. The judgment was published at the request of journalist Louise Tickle to clarify events surrounding a proposed application that she and BBC journalist Alison Holt disclose how they became aware of an urgent hearing on 12 January 2024; [1]–[2]. While it sets no precedent or guidance, the judgment sets out the seminal authorities on the protection of journalistic sources, serving as a powerful reminder of their strength and importance within the UK legal framework; [15].

Background

On 16 October 2024, the father’s legal team filed a position statement indicating an intention to seek an order requiring Ms Tickle to disclose the source and timing of the media’s notification of the 12 January hearing; [3]. A draft order, circulated but never filed by the Children’s Guardian’s legal team, proposed that both journalists serve witness statements; [4]. After the judge suggested the father’s team reflect on their position, counsel confirmed on 21 October 2024 that no order would be pursued. Accordingly, no formal application was made; [5]–[6], [12]. Ms Tickle’s statement of case, dated October 21, responded to the draft order and expressed her clear opposition to any attempt to compel source disclosure; [7].

Legal issue

In the fact-finding hearing in May 2025, the judge confirmed that no application was made by the parties for the media to disclose their sources, and therefore the issue was not adjudicated; [12]. The court’s focus was on establishing the timeline of notification. At the Guardian’s request, the court obtained and reviewed files from the Royal Courts of Justice. No party objected. The evidence showed that the press had been informed of the hearing hours before the father, who was notified only shortly before it commenced. The court found this delay infringed his Article 6 right to a fair hearing; [13]. A separate judgment addresses this issue.

Legal authorities on press freedom

Although the lawfulness of compelling source disclosure was not determined, the judgment reaffirms the strength of the legal framework protecting journalistic confidentiality. Ms Tickle cited Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 123 at 39, and Telegraaf Media Nederland v The Netherlands (App 39315/06) at 126–127, confirming that such disclosure must be justified by an overriding public interest; [7]–[8]. Lord Denning’s reasoning in British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096 at 1129–1130 was also cited in support of the press’s critical watchdog role; [9].

Conclusion

No application was brought, no disclosure order made, and no legal ruling given. This judgment was issued solely to clarify procedural events and in recognition of Ms Tickle’s request for transparency; [12], [15].

While source protection was not determined, the judgment affirms the resilience of legal protections for journalistic confidentiality. It also underscores that as transparency expands in the family courts, procedural safeguards under Article 6 must remain strictly observed; [13], [15].