Norfolk County Council v CA & Ors [2025] EWCOP 16

Judgment concerning applications to vary a Transparency Order

The applications were brought by a well-known legal blogger, Professor Celie Kitzinger, who had been reporting on contempt proceedings arising from abuse of a vulnerable elderly woman (CA) by her daughter. She was arguing, broadly, that the case was of public interest - thousands had read her blog posts - and the Transparency Order prevented her linking the report of the committal proceedings with the substantive judgment.

Mrs Justice Arbuthnot agrees to amend to the Transparency Order partly as jigsaw identification was easy given press reports of earlier proceedings, partly because the consequential harm was low, and also because, as she notes at [52], she had not been aware 

"of the difficulties that the particular terms of the Transparency Order caused to bloggers and other reporters following the case. I accept their argument that the removal of paragraph 4 (iii) will increase public confidence in the Court of Protection with a better understanding of the sort of behaviour that can lead to a fact-finding and then contempt proceedings."

Read the judgment on Bailii