Over the last week, there’s been a bit of an uproar in the High Court concerning reporting restrictions … allow me to set the scene:

Last Tuesday, Mrs Justice Roberts jailed a single mother for seven days after the woman was found to be in contempt of court following her refusal to surrender her passport and that of her young daughter in accordance with a previous order.

In hearing the committal application, an order was issued restricting the identification of the jailed woman, now known to be Olive Howell.

This was despite clear guidance issued in the summer of 2013 by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division and Lord Judge, the then Lord Chief Justice, which stated that committal hearings in relation to contempt matters should always be held in public. The guidance explains that it is a “fundamental principle of the administration of justice” that such hearings are heard in open court to ensure that the public at large are able to witness justice being done. The guidance goes on to state that this policy of transparency is “mandatory; there are no exceptions”.

In this case, the Judge said that in deciding to issue the restriction she had to balance the right of the young girl to respect for family life against the right of the press to freedom of expression. Mrs Justice Roberts felt the balance in this case tipped against the press and has been reported as saying at the time that there was “no doubt in her mind” that the restrictions imposed were appropriate.

It has been reported by various outlets that complaints were made by John Hemming MP, a well-known campaigner for improved administration in the family courts, as well as the Press Association, who both argued that in making the order in the first instance, Mrs Justice Roberts had breached the practice guidance set down in 2013.

As a result, on Friday, just three days after banning the identification of Miss Howell, the judge made an apparent “u- turn” by lifting the reporting restriction in so far as it prohibited the press from naming Miss Howell in reports of the proceedings.

It’s difficult to say definitively why the order was relaxed because no formal reasoning has been published, but Mrs Justice Roberts has been quoted as saying that she had now had the “opportunity to consider again the practice guidance” and that “it is clear…that the scope of the order in respect of reporting restrictions is too wide.” The judge told lawyers present at the hearing that her concern throughout had been the protection of the identity of the child and that she had feared that once the identity of the mother was revealed, it would be easy for the identity of the child to then become public knowledge also.

Reporting restrictions remain in place in relation to the name, age and address of Miss Howell’s daughter, together with details of the school that she attends and the identity of her father.

So what does this mean for journalists?

Reporters need to be aware that the 2013 guidance exists, and should be vigilant when situations like this one occur. As per the quote above, the policy of transparency is mandatory, without exception, and every reporter must be aware of this, and must speak out if it is not being adhered to.

There has been no change in the law – rather, this case demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the guidelines.