Communication of information: general
12.73(1) For the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, information relating to proceedings held in private (whether or not contained in a document filed with the court) may be communicated –(a) where the communication is to–(i) a party;(ii) the legal representative of a party;(iii) a professional legal adviser;(iv) an officer of the service or a Welsh family proceedings officer;(v) the welfare officer;(vi) the Director of Legal Aid Casework (within the meaning of section 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012);(vii) an expert whose instruction by a party has been authorised by the court for the purposes of the proceedings;(viii) a professional acting in furtherance of the protection of children;(ix) an independent reviewing officer appointed in respect of a child who is, or has been, subject to proceedings to which this rule applies;(b) where the court gives permission; or(c) subject to any direction of the court, in accordance with rule 12.75 and Practice Direction 12G.(2) Nothing in this Chapter permits the communication to the public at large, or any section of the public, of any information relating to the proceedings.(3) Nothing in rule 12.75 and Practice Direction 12G permits the disclosure of an unapproved draft judgment handed down by any court.”32.As noted, the terms of FPR 2010 r.12.73 are permissive, stipulating in what circumstances information relating to proceedings held in private may be communicated to defined individuals or with the permission of the court. Whilst FPR 2010 r.12.73(2) further makes clear that nothing in the rule permits communication of information relating to proceedings held in private to the public at large, FPR 2010 r.12.73 does not itself contain a prohibition against such publication. Within this context, Mr McCarren’s application to commit Mr Ireland for contempt makes no mention of s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1963, the terms of which are as follows:“12.— Publication of information relating to proceedings in private.(1) The publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except in the following cases, that is to say—(a) where the proceedings—(i) relate to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors;(ii) are brought under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002; or(iii) otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor;(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing subsection, the publication of the text or a summary of the whole or part of an order made by a court sitting in private shall not of itself be contempt of court except where the court (having power to do so) expressly prohibits the publication.(3) In this section references to a court include references to a judge and to a tribunal and to any person exercising the functions of a court, a judge or tribunal; and references to a court sitting in private include references to a court sitting in camera or in chambers.(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as implying that any publication is punishable as contempt of court which would not be so punishable apart from this section (and in particular where the publication is not so punishable by reason of being authorised by rules of court).”33.It is now clearly established that s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1963 does not preclude the publication of the fact that a child is the subject of family proceedings under the Children Act 1989, the identity of that child, the date, time and place of past or future hearings, the nature of the dispute in such proceedings or the result of wardship or family proceedings and the order or an accurate summary of the order made in those proceedings (see Re B (A Child)(Disclosure) [2004] 2 FLR 142 and Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Pelling [2006] 1 FLR 93). Accordingly, the publication of such information would not amount to a contempt of court for the purposes of s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1963. In any event, a non-molestation order made under the Family Law Act 1996 cannot come within the terms of s.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1963 as it does not arise out of proceedings relating to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court with respect to minors, proceedings brought under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or proceedings otherwise relating wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a minor.34.The other statutory provision that regulates the publication of information from family law proceedings heard in private, namely the Children Act 1989 s.97, is not relevant in this case.35.The power to strike out a statement of case in family proceedings is set out in FPR 2010 r.4.4, which provides as follows:“