Louise Tickle v The Father & Ors [2025] EWFC 160

[2025] EWFC 160Case No SD23P00094
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate 09/06/2025
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before
MS JUSTICE HENKE
Between
Louise TickleApplicant(1) The FatherRespondents(2) The MotherRespondent(3) The ChildRespondent
The Applicant appeared as a Litigant in Person for in personJune Venters KC (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for First RespondentDr Charlotte Proudman and Yasmin Omotosho (instructed by Jung & Co Solicitors) for Second RespondentFran Wiley KC and Melissa Elsworth (instructed by Wannops Solicitors) for Third RespondentHearing Hearing dates: 2 May 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 9 June 2025 by email to the parties and their representatives and release to the National Archives..............................MS JUSTICE HENKEThis judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.Ms Justice Henke :Introduction
[1]I have recently given judgment after a lengthy fact-finding hearing in a Private Law case. That judgment will be published shortly. This judgment deals with a discrete issue which arose during that hearing. The judgment from the fact-find sets out the full factual context in which the issue arose. It is not repeated herein.[2]Within the fact-finding hearing, on 21 October 2024, Ms Tickle submitted a Statement of Case in which she asked to be able to report upon an “application” made in proceedings before me to disclose who had tipped off the press about a hearing before Mr Justice Francis on 12 January 2024. She wanted to able to quote from the “application”, as well as to report what had happened in court and how it had been dealt with. Within her statement, she told me that she can do this without referring to the underlying facts of the case except in the most general terms. She asked me to publish a judgment about my decision. As will become apparent from the below, I did not need to give any judgment in relation to any such application because no formal application was ever made for such disclosure. Consequently, I did not hear full argument upon it and have not had to rule upon it. No order in this case has been made against Ms Tickle or any other journalist. No journalist or any other person has been required to disclose their source by me.

Background

[3]On 16 October 2024, in a Position Statement on behalf of the father, counsel wrote: We seek an order that Ms. Tickle (journalist who attended the emergency hearing heard by Mr Justice Francis on 12.01.24) confirm: i. At what time she received notice of the hearing held on 12.01.24. ii. Who provided that notice. iii. How was it provided. iv. When she was first told that there may be a hearing in that week or a hearing of that nature in this case. v. Who shared any of that information with her. vi. How was any of that information shared with her.[4]It appears that the Guardian’s legal team had already circulated to the parties (and not the court) a draft order dated 15 October 2024 stating that Ms Tickle and Ms Alison Holt of the BBC should file and serve a witness statement outlining how they first became aware of these proceedings and who they were informed by. I am told that the draft was circulated to the parties in an attempt to be helpful. It was never formally relied upon and was not sent to me for consideration. However, Counsel on behalf of the Guardian filed and served a position statement on 18 October 2024 in which they indicated support for the father’s position.[5]On 18 October 2024, I adjourned the issue to 22 October 2024 when both Ms Tickle and Miss Holt could be present. At that hearing, Counsel on behalf of the mother stated that the application against the press was misconceived and unlawful. I suggested that the father’s legal team should carefully reflect on the application. There was also discussion about the mother and her team reflecting on revealing Ms Tickle’s source and the potential for ‘adverse inferences’ being drawn. The mother’s team strongly refuted that approach in writing and in oral submissions.[6]On 21 October 2024, Counsel on behalf of the father circulated a further position statement stating they were no longer pursuing an order against the press. Thus no formal application had or has ever been made.[7]The Statement of Case provided by Ms Tickle and dated 21 October was written in response to the father’s initial position statement and the draft order. It sets out her understandably strong opposition to any journalist being ordered by a court to reveal their source. The reasons she gives are based firmly in the ethical code that all accredited journalists follow. She rightly took me to Telegraaf Media Nederland v The Netherlands (App 39315/06), paras [126]-[127] which states as follows:
“126. Under the terms of Article 10 § 2, the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which also apply to the press. Article 10 protects a journalist’s right – and duty – to impart information on matters of public interest provided that he is acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. 127. Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is recognised and reflected in various international instruments […] Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.”
[8]For the test Ms Tickle citedGoodwin v UK (App 17488/90) (1996) 22 EHRR 123, para [39] “Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of Contracting States and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public-watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.”[9]I was also taken by Ms Tickle to British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd [1981] AC 1096, 1129-1130 per Lord Denning MR in CA (appeal to HoL dismissed):
“The public has a right of access to information which is of public concern and of which the public ought to know. The newspapers are the agents, so to speak, of the public to collect that information and to tell the public of it. In support of this right of access, the newspapers should not in general be compelled to disclose their sources of information … The reason is because, if they were compelled to disclose their sources, they would soon be bereft of information which they ought to have. Their sources would dry up. Wrongdoing would not be disclosed. Charlatans would not be exposed. Unfairness would go unremedied. Misdeeds in the corridors of power — in companies or in government departments — would never be known. Investigative journalism has proved itself as a valuable adjunct of the freedom of the press … It should not be unduly hampered or restricted by the law. Much of the information gathered by the press has been imparted to the informant in confidence. He is guilty of a breach of confidence in telling it to the press. But this is not a reason why his name should be disclosed. Otherwise much information, that ought to be made public, will never be made known. Likewise with documents. They may infringe copyright. But that is no reason for compelling their disclosure, if by so doing it would mean disclosing the name of the informant.”
[10]I accept the authorities cited by Ms Tickle accurately reflect the law.[11]Ms Tickle within her Statement of Case criticized the father’s team. She also criticized me for saying in essence during the course of discussions in court that the source of the information could be obtained if it was relevant to the issues that I had to determine by means other than requiring a journalist to reveal their sources. As I explained on more than one occasion throughout the hearing, what I wanted to do was concentrate on hearing the fact-find before me which would provide the factual narrative upon which future welfare decisions would be taken in relation to the subject child. In relation to that fact-find I wanted to decide the case on the best evidence available. One of the issues in the fact-find was why the father of the subject child appeared not to have been told of an application concerning the children of the family until shortly before an out-of-hours hearing on 12 January 2024 before Mr Justice Francis when the press appeared to have been told earlier. That was said on behalf of the father to be relevant to the findings I was being asked by him to make against the mother. The issue before me was about timing and who had been notified when, not the source of notification to the ppress. That is the issue to which I was referring when I said that the information could be obtained from other sources.[12]Recently I have handed down my judgment in that fact-find. I have found that the “application” for the press to disclose who informed them of the hearing on 12 January 2024 was never formally made. What had happened was that the father's initial position statement and the oral submissions of all parties that that provoked, caused me to refer the parties to the “tipping off” case law and indicate that the father’s team should reflect carefully on their position. In the event, the father’s team chose not to make a formal application and the issue was not pursued. As a consequence, I have not heard full argument on the point, and I have not had to rule on the issue. That is why there is no ruling on any application in this case.[13]As the fact-finding hearing progressed, and as the issue of when the father was notified of the hearing on 12 January 2024 came into focus, I was asked on behalf of the Guardian to make enquiries with the local Family Court and the Royal Courts of Justice to obtain the court file. That disclosure was not the subject of any objection by any party at the time. The court file in the Royal Courts of Justice was disclosed and led to a timeline being established. The disclosure thus obtained, when viewed in the context of all the evidence in the case, established that the press knew of the application a number of hours before the father, who only knew of the hearing shortly before it commenced. I have found that that late notice infringed his right to a fair trial under Article 6.

The Publication of This Judgment

[14]The accredited media have attended this fact-find hearing. The BBC have been present throughout. Ms Tickle attended when she could.[15]Within her Statement of Case, Ms Tickle asked me to publish a judgment about my decision on the application against the media, how it has played out, and how it has been dealt with. I have, as I said I would, given this judgment. I have done so because it is important that I keep my word. This judgment should not be read as guidance, formal or informal. That is not the intention of this judgment and it should not be read as such. This judgment merely sets out briefly how the issue played out before me and how I dealt with it. I have not given a ruling on the issue in principle because, as I have already set out, the issue was not pursued before me and was not fully argued. I have, however, set out the seminal cases which Ms Tickle cited. They are a powerful reminder of the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society. They are at the heart of Ms Tickle’s position statement dated 21 October 2024.[16]Within her Statement of Case, Ms Tickle also sought to be able to report the court's handling of this issue, including whether she can quote from the relevant position statements. Ms Tickle has already given her reasons why there should be reporting in relation to the issue. However, I have not heard specific argument from the parties on the application to quote from the position statements . They quite properly in their closing submissions focused on the fact-find. I will thus give them an opportunity to address the issue of reporting on the court's handling of this issue, including whether Ms Tickle can quote from the relevant position statements. I will hear any such submissions at the hearing already listed on 10 June 2025.