A High Court judge has agreed to release redacted documents from family proceedings to a journalist from The Observer despite some of the material containing information which could only be considered in closed court for reasons of national security.
The journalist may also publish the fact that one of appellants is a serving member of the British Army’s Special Forces.
The Honourable Mr Justice Garrido, who handed down his judgment in CX (A child) (Reporting restrictions order: National security) at the Royal Courts of Justice on the 29th April, also imposed a reporting restriction order (RRO) on behalf of the father involved in the case.
The appeal judgement was in regard to a child welfare case concluded in the family court in 2023.
On 8 January 2025, an application was made by a freelance journalist, Louise Tickle, for the disclosure of documents and permission to report on proceedings that she did not attend.
The application form stated that she intended to maintain the anonymity of the parties. However, Justice Garrido explains “that position soon fluctuated” and caused “considerable uncertainty for this family and complication and delay” in proceedings.
In a witness statement, Tickle said: “From the many hundreds of cases of which I become aware every year, I must very carefully select one or two which I know will interest national news editors because they have an especially compelling public interest element, which I can argue will justify the effort and investment required to make the application to report it, despite the risk of not succeeding.
“This case is one of those very few. I have already expended considerable unpaid time, and been represented to date pro bono, in order to get to the stage where The Observer will commit to the investigation.”
The father made an application for a reporting restrictions order (RRO), which in turn prompted the Secretary of State for Defence also to apply for a RRO.
During the original welfare proceedings the mother alleged that she had been subjected to domestic abuse by the father. In a judgment delivered on 20 January 2022, the judge decided that the mother had indeed suffered terrible abuse perpetrated by the father.
An extract from that judgment states: “In my view, it was a relationship characterised by extreme emotional and psychological abuse of the mother over many years. There were patterns of behaviour by the father that were deliberately intended to worsen her anxiety and intimidate her and make her feel subordinate. At numerous points in 2017, 2018 and 2019 Welfare were so concerned that they wanted to disclose to the father’s employer, but they did not have the mother’s consent to do so. Instead, they put in place safety plans and referred her to other support services.”
Tickle, who has an impressive record of reporting on family cases for national newspapers, applied for documents relating to the case despite having not been present in court during the 2020-2023 proceedings.
The High Court considered a letter that had been written by a Lieutenant Colonel in the disclosure unit, who was responding to a request from the father’s solicitor, when it was said to be believed that Tickle would imminently publish the father’s name and role.
It emerged that the first draft of the letter included additional sensitive information about the father (such as the name of his barracks and his rank) that his solicitor asked to be deleted, leading to a second version that was the one eventually disseminated.
The judge also referred to the contents of a “harm statement” that could only be considered in closed court for reasons of national security.
Tickle later clarified her intent not to name the father or identify any details which might be potentially considered breaches of national security.
In January 2026, a letter was sent to Justice Gariddo on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence stating that “following careful consideration, the Ministry of Defence has decided, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, no longer to pursue its application for a RRO.” The MOD did, however, redact some of the documents.
The father’s bid for reporting restrictions was agreed by the judge.
The judgment by Justice Garrido concludes: “I shall therefore make the transparency order and reporting restrictions order as agreed between the parties and the intervener, and order the disclosure of the documents sought by Ms Tickle, albeit subject to the redactions proposed by the children’s guardian and the Secretary of State for Defence.”
He added: “There is a significant public interest in the family court’s approach to the determination of allegations of domestic abuse and the impact of any subsequent findings on the future arrangements for children to have a relationship with a perpetrator parent.
“I proceed on the basis that Ms Tickle’s purpose in reporting this case is to enable public scrutiny and further public understanding of the decisions taken in that context in this particular case. That places this application squarely within the open justice principle, and is not undermined by the additional impact on the case of the assertion of the father’s membership of UK Special Forces, whatever that may be.”
Earlier this year the High Court granted another journalist access to psychologists’ reports on cases where she hadn’t attended proceedings.
Justice Garrido said in his judgement that “the gold standard is clearly for the journalist to attend the proceedings that she wishes to report and hear the evidence tested.” He conceded, however, that “a failure to do that will not always or even often lead to non-disclosure of primary documentary evidence just because the gold standard can no longer be attained.”
“A transcript of the original proceedings may be the next best thing.”
He added: “I am satisfied that the restrictions on the extent of anonymised reporting agreed by the parties, together with the children’s guardian’s and the MOD’s redactions, sufficiently protect the European Court of Human Rights article 8 rights of the child, mother and father in the balance against the overwhelming importance of advancing the article 10 rights of freedom of expression.”
