• News, Events & Resources

Bradley v CM and Others: Journalistic Access to Family Court Documents

news

27/01/2026

Bradley v CM and Others: Journalistic Access to Family Court Documents

Ashley Lord considers the decision in Bradley v CM and Others, a significant judgment addressing the circumstances in which journalists may obtain access to documents from private family proceedings and the procedural safeguards that must govern such applications. The judgment sits at the intersection of open justice, media freedom, and the protection of children and families within the Family Court.

Full judgment: Jessica Bradley v CM & Ors – Find Case Law – The National Archives

Background to the Case

The applications before the court arose out of four sets of concluded private law family proceedings.

Each case involved prolonged and contentious disputes between parents following separation, and in each case expert psychological evidence had been obtained from the same expert, Dr Maria Downs, in the context of allegations of alienating behaviour (the court noted that Dr Downs had not diagnosed “parental alienation syndrome” (which is a widely discredited diagnosis) in any of the reports subject to the application). The four sets of proceedings were heard in private and, save for one case in which a Transparency Order had been made, no judgments had been published, and no journalists had attended the hearings.

Ms Bradley, an investigative journalist, sought access after the conclusion of the proceedings to a range of documents on the court file, including expert psychological reports, Cafcass reports, and final orders and judgments. Her stated purpose was to investigate and report on how the Family Court addresses allegations of alienating behaviour, particularly where such allegations arise alongside claims of domestic abuse, and to scrutinise the role played by expert evidence in those decisions. As a result, the court was required to determine both whether access to the documents should be granted and whether permission should be given to publish or communicate their contents.

Legal Framework

The judgment provides a detailed review of the statutory and procedural framework governing access to family court documents. Family proceedings are ordinarily heard in private, and publication of information relating to such proceedings is restricted by section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and, while proceedings are ongoing, section 97 of the Children Act 1989. Although the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 12R permit accredited journalists attending hearings to receive specified documents and to report within defined limits under a Transparency Order, they do not confer a general right of access to the court file.

A journalist seeking access to documents beyond those provided for by a Transparency Order must apply under rule 29.12 of the Family Procedure Rules. Where the journalist also seeks permission to publish information from private proceedings beyond the scope of the rules, the court may only grant such permission through the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In each case, the court must conduct a careful balancing exercise between the Article 10 rights of the journalist, the Article 8 rights of the children and families concerned, and the overarching principle of open justice, treating the welfare of the children as a primary consideration

Guidance on Procedure for Journalists’ Applications

A central feature of the judgment is the potential guidance it suggests as to the procedure to be followed when journalists seek access to documents from private family proceedings. The court emphasised that access should never be granted informally. Requests made directly to court staff or without judicial oversight are inappropriate, particularly where the documents sought contain sensitive personal information. Any such request must be made by way of a proper application to the court.

The application should clearly identify the documents sought, explain why access is requested, and demonstrate how granting access would advance the principle of open justice. Ordinarily, notice should be given to all parties to the proceedings, (which may necessarily have to be given by the court). Consideration will need to be given in relation to the involvement of any subject children. The court recognised the potential difficulty of involving children in applications made long after proceedings have concluded, but indicated that, where children are of sufficient age and maturity, it may be necessary for them to be involved so that their views can be ascertained, either through a guardian or directly, in order properly to respect their Article 8 rights.

The judge considering the application must separately address (i) whether to grant permission for the applicant to inspect the document, and separately (ii) whether to grant permission to the applicant to publish or communicate any of the contents. Permission to inspect a document does not, without more, confer permission to publish it. Any order granting access or publication may be limited, subject to conditions, or confined to specific parts of documents, and should go no further than is necessary to meet the legitimate public interest identified.

Significance

The decision underlines that, while transparency in the Family Court is an important and developing principle, it does not displace the fundamental privacy protections afforded to children and families.

Journalists may play a vital role in scrutinising how family justice is administered, particularly in areas of significant public debate such as allegations of alienating behaviour and the use of expert evidence. However, such scrutiny must be pursued through a structured and carefully controlled process, with judicial oversight at its core.

This judgment is likely to be influential as similar applications become more common, particularly where journalists seek access to documents in cases they did not attend. It also highlights the potential need for further procedural guidance or reform to ensure that applications of this nature can be dealt with efficiently and consistently, while maintaining the delicate balance between open justice and the welfare and privacy of children.

FULL JUDGMENT