Journalist refused permission to name abusive father

A journalist has failed to persuade a court to ease reporting restrictions in a private law case concerning arrangements for a child, to allow her to identify and name the father.

The journalist, who had attended a number of hearings in the case, wanted to identify the father, in the light of his criminal history, and findings of domestic abuse made against him. She argued that the father’s conduct was so serious that there was a public interest in him being named.

The background to the case was as follows. The mother and father have one child, a five-year-old girl. They separated before the child was born, and have been involved in court proceedings concerning arrangements for her for much of her life. The father is currently having indirect contact with his daughter, in accordance with a recent court order.

Perhaps the defining moment in the case was an incident that occurred in December 2021. In accordance with arrangements at the time, the father collected the child from the mother’s address. Later that morning, alone at her address, the mother was confronted by two masked men in her property. One of the intruders attacked the mother by beating her, throwing a toxic substance in her face, as well as lacerating her face and throat. The mother managed to escape. The two men fled, leaving no signs of forced entry, and taking nothing from the property. The police investigated, and included the father in their investigations, but as yet have not charged any individuals.

The mother is convinced that the father orchestrated this attack.

Subsequently arrangements between the parents for the child deteriorated, such that she has not seen her father for more than two years. The parents made various allegations against each other, and the court fixed a fact-finding hearing to determine the truth of the allegations.

At the hearing, the judge made a number of significant findings, including the father’s domestic abuse of the mother, his dishonest and evasive conduct during the police investigations, and his lack of honesty in the proceedings. However, the judge found the evidence to be lacking in support of an allegation that the father had any involvement in the attack on the mother, and therefore did not make any findings in that regard.

The mother initially supported the journalist’s application for the father to be publicly named. However, after the police warned her that naming him could put her and the child at risk, she adopted a neutral position.

The father strongly opposed the application, arguing that whilst the court’s findings were serious, they were not of a nature that raised public interest to a degree that would justify interfering with the normal rules of confidentiality in children cases.

The child’s guardian also opposed the application, raising serious concerns about the prospect of the child being identified, and the harm that she could suffer as a result.

The judge agreed with the guardian, saying: “It may seem paradoxical that an individual whose conduct and behaviour may raise concerns for the public should have his identity protected by operation of rules of confidentiality within the family court. However, in the instant case, the safety and protection of [the child] and her mother must be given priority.”

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

You can read the court’s judgment on the journalist’s application, here.

*          *          *

Family Law Cafe gives you the best strategy to achieve the right outcome for you and your family and keeps them informed and in control 24/7 through a unique and secure online portal. Family Law Cafe is your start-point for getting matters sorted with strategy, support and security.

Image: Iren_Geo / Shutterstock.com