Case No. FD19P00246

27.As will have been plain to those who attended the hearing, I, like the guardian before me, have not found this to be an easy or straightforward decision to make. 28.Approaching the issue from first principles, the case against publication appears strong. Whilst the Family Court regularly publishes judgments where issues relating to the welfare of children have been determined, invariably the identity of the child concerned is not disclosed. Researches by counsel have failed to find even one example of a child being publicly named as being the subject of a judgment in which their future welfare is determined. That firmly established default position is reinforced by the statutory scheme in AJA 1960, s 12 and CA 1989, s 97. In the context of the ECHR, and the balance that must be struck in each case between competing rights under Articles 6, 8 and 10, there will often be little or no public interest in naming individual children and the balance will, therefore, be heavily weighted against doing so.29.The changes proposed in the recent Transparency Review do not seek to go behind the principle that the identity of children who are the subject of proceedings before the Family Court should remain confidential, even if, as the review recommends, the court process itself is made more open to public reporting and scrutiny.30.The circumstances in the present case, however, plainly differ significantly from the ordinary run of children cases. The children are the daughter and son of two internationally known parents, one of whom is the Head of Government of a prominent and powerful State. For reasons that have been explained in previous judgments, it has been held to be in the children’s best interests, particularly with respect to their personal safety, for the court’s previous findings of fact to be published. Separately, the court’s judgment relating to the parties’ finances has also been made public. Understandably, given the content of those judgments and the public profile of the parents, the court’s findings of fact have been very widely reported in the UK, in the Middle East and elsewhere. A great deal of detailed information about these two named children’s past and present circumstances is already in the public domain.31.As a result of the degree of information that is already out there, and known to the media and the public at large, about the children, all three parties before the court have, for some time, accepted that a statement should be published which, as a minimum, records that the proceedings with respect to the children are now at an end and explains in short terms what orders the court has made. For my part, that was also the position that I had in mind when preparing the Welfare Judgment. At that stage, my preliminary, inchoate, view was that any such statement should only be very short and that any more lengthy description of matters relating to the children’s welfare would neither be justified by the public interest, nor compatible with the children’s welfare.32.Matters, however, moved on, very significantly in my view, with the filing of the mother’s latest witness statement in which, as I have described, she stresses just how important it is for the children’s safety and wider wellbeing for there to be a full, publicly accessible and authoritative account, not only of the outcome of the court proceedings, but also of the court’s further findings and reasoning.33.Those acting for the father do not take issue with the content of the mother’s statement and she was not called to be cross-examined. It is, therefore, to be accepted as a reliable description of her perception of these important matters and of her considered opinion, as the children’s mother, as to the outcome. Going further, my reading of the statement is that it is a coherent and well reasoned account of the relevant issues and of Her Royal Highness’ considered evaluation of them. In keeping with the mother’s consistent view as to the protective value of publicity in relation to the past judgments, once again she advises that full publication (subject to necessary redaction) is required.34.The mother’s opinion is, in large part, based upon her apprehension that, if any leeway is available to him, the father and those acting for him would populate any informational gap or vacuum with their own account which, on the basis of past behaviour, would be a false one aimed at manipulating public opinion in his favour in a manner detrimental to the children and their mother. Previous findings of the court with respect to statements made by the father support the mother’s evaluation of the potential for just such an outcome. Recent posting of photographs on Instagram by those close to the father, which appear to be a deliberate attempt to suggest that His Highness is back in face-to-face contact with his son, are strongly supportive of the accuracy of the mother’s prediction.35.I share the view of Ms Magson, summarised at paragraph 25 above, that substantial weight is to be afforded to the reasoned opinion of the children’s mother. The court has already, when making the welfare determination itself, identified the impressive and wholly child-centred manner in which Her Royal Highness has discharged her responsibility as a parent of her two children over the past three years. In a way that is simply not open either to Ms Magson, or to the court, Her Royal Highness has an insight into, and an understanding of, the father, those around him and the wider cultural issues. Unless it has good reason not to do so, there are strong grounds for the court to respect and to follow this mother’s opinion on the issue of publication.36.Further, but in the same context, where, as here, the court has recently determined that one parent is to be entrusted with a wide degree of autonomy in matters relating to the children’s welfare, there are sound reasons for placing a premium upon that parent’s views on the issue of publication.37.Separately, the views of Jalila on publicity, as expressed to the guardian, have recently changed. Save for the protection of particularly private information, she favours publicity. [redacted]. Jalila is now 14 years old. She is an intelligent and mature individual, whose considered views must attract substantial weight on this important issue.38.Thirdly, in terms of the attribution of weight, separately and independently, the professional opinion of Ms Magson in support of publication of the judgment must also be afforded significant respect by the court. That is particularly so because of the very favourable view that I had already formed of the way in which Ms Magson had undertaken her professional duties at the time of the substantive welfare hearing. In addition, it is plain that she has brought anxious and careful consideration to bear on the current issue of publicity before, on balance, moving to favour publication of the judgment rather than a summary.39.These powerful considerations must, however, be weighed against the very firmly, and rightly, entrenched default position in favour of confidentiality which I have already outlined. I place very little weight on the asserted need for consistency arising from the fact that all of the previous judgments have been published; the Welfare Judgment is in a separate category and requires a bespoke evaluation without any presumption as to publicity that may arise from the manner in which the earlier judgments have been approached.40.In considering this issue, I have very much in mind that the children are approaching a sensitive stage in their education. It is hoped that this small family will develop a wider group of social contacts and friends. There is plainly a risk, as Lord Pannick describes, of intimate details being picked up from any publicity and used to Jalila and Zayed’s detriment by children and/or parents connected with their respective schools. On the other hand, Her Royal Highness is concerned that, unless there is full publication, there is the potential for greater harm to be caused by those same children or parents inadvertently picking up and deploying untrue or manipulated accounts.41.Drawing these matters together, I am now persuaded that a much fuller account of the court’s welfare determination must be published. A solid, detailed and clear account is needed to meet the legitimate concerns of Jalila and her mother. In addition, publication of the judgment will enhance the arrangements for the children’s safety. That means that a short statement simply recording the outcome that I had previously considered would be insufficient. I am reassured that my change of view on this is justified by the fact that the father, too, has revised his position so that he now supports the publication of a statement in line with the detailed draft prepared on behalf of the guardian.42.The decision therefore moves to the choice between a full and detailed statement or publication of the judgment itself, subject to some redaction. The guardian’s draft statement runs to over 1,700 words. It includes, in summary form, a description of each of the factors that were seen to be of relevance to the welfare determination. It therefore contains a good deal of personal information about the children and their parents; information which would normally be confidential, but which it is now agreed should be made public. What the summary does not do is recite the detail from the court’s previous findings and from the evidence adduced at the welfare hearing, which are set out in support of evaluation of the identified factors. The summary, also, does not include a full account of the court’s welfare analysis.43.I consider that the draft is a good and accurate summary, but, having now read it a number of times, I am concerned that, having given so much detail, it begs the question of what further material the court took into account, and how it did so, in forming its ultimate conclusions. Put another way, whilst the summary aims to capture the headline points in the court’s evaluation, and in doing it puts those points, and the fact that the court considered them relevant, out into the public domain, I am concerned that, by omitting the underlying analysis, the summary does not do justice to that analysis.44.In any case there will be a spectrum, in terms of publicity, which runs from total confidentiality, at one end, over to total openness at the other. As the needle in favour of publicity moves across such a spectrum, there must come a moment when a tipping point is reached where so much information is to be published that little is to be gained by withholding the remainder. My considered view is that the degree of publicity represented by the guardian’s draft falls into this category. So much of the structure and the headline points made in the Welfare Judgment is now, with the father’s agreement, to be published, that it is difficult to identify any principled reason for withholding publication of most of the remainder.45.The mother’s case, of course, is that, in any event, publication of the whole judgment (subject to redactions) is required as being in the best interests of the children and, in particular, for their personal safety. I have already concluded that very substantial weight must be afforded to the mother’s advice, and Jalila’s opinion, and, in turn, to the guardian’s endorsement of their positions. Regrettably, the factual basis upon which the mother’s stance is based, that is the potential for the father and those acting for him to utilise any summary or informational vacuum created by the absence of full publication to promulgate untrue accounts of matters relating to the children’s welfare, is sound. Her appraisal of the risk of harm, which would be continuing rather than time-limited, from false information is, in my view, entirely reasonable. In the circumstances, I am persuaded that she is right that it is therefore necessary to remove the potential for conjecture, manipulation and/or falsehood as to the content of the judgment by its publication, rather than publishing only a summary. 46.I am also persuaded that there is reassurance, confidence and comfort to be drawn by Her Royal Highness and the children from knowing that an authoritative, accurate and clear account of these matters will be publicly available, world-wide, if the judgment is published.47.In reaching that conclusion, I also accept that, in a case where so much information has already been published about these children and their circumstances, the degree of further intrusion into their right to privacy by publishing the judgment is not nearly as extensive as it would be were there to have been no advance publicity. 48.Further, although this is a point of only modest weight, in circumstances where a great deal of information from these proceedings has already been made public, there is a measure of public interest, and legal/social work professional interest, in publication of the detail of the court’s conclusions with respect to the children’s welfare and domestic abuse at the end of this extensive litigation. 49.I will therefore direct that the Welfare Judgment, subject to certain redactions which I will indicate in a separate document, is to be published.[Judgment Ends]