Every reader of this column will know how tricky it can be to report care proceedings involving children. The restrictions imposed by S.97 of the Children Act 1989 are extensive.

Among other things, experience tells us that dialogue between journalists and local authorities concerning what can and cannot be reported is often lacking, unhelpful, or confusing.

However, in a helpful judgment handed down last week, Mr Justice Bodey made it clear that local authorities and the media should co-operate with each other, in order to find an early resolution to such issues.

The background to the case is that an experienced freelance journalist wanted to write a 5,000 word report on care proceedings. The report would outline a mother’s experience with her children and the care system, and was being written for a broad sheet newspaper.

The mother has written various articles about her experiences, giving advice to others who are in a similar position to the one she found herself in. Therefore, the mother was supportive of the journalist’s article.

The court hearing was essentially a hearing of cross applications by the journalist and the local authority – with the journalist wanting to report the case, and the local authority wanting a reporting restriction put in place. However, the parties agreed a draft reporting restriction order before the hearing, which Mr Justice Bodey approved.

In approving the order, Mr Justice Bodey commented that the order was essentially what he would have handed down, had the parties not agreed it, as it balanced the public interest in knowing about care proceedings with the privacy of those involved in the case.

During the hearing, the journalist’s representative levied criticisms at the local authority for only agreeing to the journalist’s suggested approach at a very late stage.

Whilst Mr Justice Bodey did not criticise the local authority because it did not have time to respond to the allegation, he set out the following point of principle:

“….what I will say is that this application demonstrates how time consuming and troublesome applications like this can be; not only for the media, but also for the court and for all parties. These are not easy applications. They require time, effort, research and expense on what is essentially a satellite issue. For these reasons it is important that if and when Local Authorities and the media…do come to realise there is an issue between them about how much should be reportable and on what terms, there should be sensible and responsible dialogue as soon as possible….”

He went on to say that “with the application of give-and-take, a measure of common-sense, and the engagement of the Children’s Guardian” it should be possible to reach a solution which balances the need for greater transparency in the public interest, and the “privacy and sensitivities” of those who are involved.

Whilst Mr Justice Bodey’s comments do not create new law, they are incredibly persuasive, and will be refreshing for many journalists to read.

Cases such as this one can be very complicated, but as you know, they are also very newsworthy. Therefore, it is in the interests of all parties for issues to be dealt with at an early stage and for the journalist to have a clear remit of what can and can’t be reported.

At a practical level, if you are struggling to establish meaningful communication with the relevant local authority, Mr Justice Bodey’s comments may well be persuasive in opening a meaningful dialogue. Feel free to rely on the Judge’s comments if you encountering a culture of secrecy and non-cooperation. After all, this is precisely what he intended and wants to encourage.