Barristers tried to prevent a journalist from reporting from a family court despite new ‘transparency’ rules aimed at opening up such hearings.

As covered by HTFP last week, new open reporting provisions came into force in all family courts in England and Wales last Monday.

It means accredited journalists and bloggers can now speak to families about their ongoing cases, report what they see and hear in court, and quote from key documents – provided they keep those families anonymous.

Freelance journalist and media law trainer Charlie Moloney, pictured, attended Reading family court on Monday to report on the rollout of the extended transparency scheme for MailOnline.

His shocking story – about a father accused of Googling ‘how to make a child disabled’ in a bid to obtain more benefits – was eventually published, but not before a court battle.

Barristers for the local authority, the mother in the case and a court appointed guardian all tried to prevent Charlie from reporting.

Counsel for the mother began: “The mother does not agree to any reporting whatsoever, I make that clear to your honour.

“We are concerned reporting may cause only more interest, more attendees by journalists at this court. The mother is about to give evidence, that creates more pressure, having the presence of press.”

He also claimed that allowing reference to Reading and potentially therefore the family court in the town would cause potential “jigsaw identification” in the case.

The barrister for the court appointed guardian concurred, arguing that the media should simply report “a court in Reading”, rather than Reading family court and said naming Royal Berkshire Hospital “would probably not assist”.

The barrister for the father added that, as her client was about to give evidence, press reporting would be “anxiety inducing”.

Charlie also became aware that the barrister for the local authority had proposed an order to the judge with a clause which would have meant he was unable to report anything until the end of Friday.

In response Charlie sent a note to Judge Robin Tolson KC stating: “I understand the draft which has been sent to your honour includes a request to stay any reporting until day 5 of 5 of this fact finding hearing.

“My understanding is this is being sought by counsel to prevent persons unknown attending this court in response to the reporting.

“I would respectfully submit that the transparency order should not include a stay on reporting.

“So long as the report does not identify the family, including by jigsaw, I would submit reporting should be permitted this evening.”

When the parties returned to court, Judge Tolson indicated he was minded to allow “real-time reporting,” adding: “Otherwise what is the point in any of this?”, seemingly in reference to the expanded transparency scheme.

The judge also ruled that the town of Reading could be named, adding: “I cannot see a media storm of interest is remotely likely.”

Since the case Charlie has posted a thread on X advising journalists how to overcome objections to their reporting of family courts, citing real-time reporting and jisgaw ID as the two main areas of resistance.

He wrote: “Barristers for all parties argued I should only be able to report at the end of a five-day fact finding hearing. Rather than same day. Judge did not accept that, luckily, but it would have been a problem if he had.

“Barristers in criminal courts seem pretty au fait with what kinds of details would cause jigsaw ID. Barristers in the family courts, less so. Perhaps due to less experience encountering the media.

“I was confidently informed the town of Reading could not be named for jigsaw ID reasons despite Reading being home to some 174,000 people.  Luckily the judge did not go with that.”