Anonymising Materials for Transparency Pilot Reporting – UK GDPR-compliant anonymisation per FPR PD 36J
The Family Court Transparency Pilot under FPR PD 36J is a programme allowing accredited journalists and legal bloggers to report family hearings, subject to anonymisation obligations under section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960. Launched 30 January 2023, it reached 19 courts by mid-2024. anonym.legal helps prepare compliant anonymised judgments for around 145,000 Cafcass-monitored cases.
When this applies
This task applies when a judge, legal journalist, or court-appointed transparency reporter is preparing a case report or summary for publication under the FPR PD 36J Transparency Pilot, and requires systematic pseudonymisation of all named individuals — including those protected by CA 1989 s.1 welfare paramountcy — before the report is published.
How anonym.legal handles it
- Upload the draft case report, position statement extract, or judgment summary intended for publication.
- The engine identifies all named parties, children, witnesses, and professionals in the document.
- Each individual receives a consistent pseudonym aligned with standard transparency-pilot reporting conventions (e.g. 'the Father', 'Child B', 'the Local Authority').
- Legal analysis, statutory references, procedural history, and welfare outcomes are preserved in full.
- A reversible mapping table is produced so the reporter or clerk can verify the pseudonymised text.
- The pseudonymised report is ready for editorial review and publication in compliance with FPR PD 36J.
What you provide
- Draft case report or court summary
- Approved or approved-in-principle judgment (if being published in full)
- Any reporting restriction order specifying anonymisation requirements
Limitations & cautions
- FPR PD 36J reporting requires compliance with any specific reporting restriction order made in the case — including orders under SCA 1981 s.41 or FPR 2010 r.27.11 — review the order before relying solely on the engine's default pseudonymisation.
- The journalist or reporter retains editorial responsibility for ensuring the published account is fair, accurate, and compliant with the Transparency Pilot guidelines and FPR PD 36J.
- anonym.legal provides a systematic anonymisation pass; the reviewing journalist or clerk should verify all pseudonymised content before publication.
FAQ
Does FPR PD 36J permit naming the local authority in public-law proceedings?
Whether the local authority can be named depends on the specific reporting restrictions in the case. Local authority names are pseudonymised by default; the reporter can selectively re-identify them using the mapping table if permissible.
Are expert witnesses' names pseudonymised in transparency pilot reports?
Expert witnesses who are identified by name in the judgment may be named in the published report unless a specific reporting restriction applies. Flag experts for selective re-identification via the mapping table where appropriate.
Can accredited journalists use this tool to prepare their own case reports?
Yes. The tool is suitable for accredited journalists and legal bloggers attending under FPR PD 36J who wish to prepare a compliant anonymised case report. The journalist retains full editorial responsibility for compliance.
How does the tool handle case reference numbers in transparency pilot reports?
Case reference numbers are not personal data and are preserved. Only the personal data of named individuals is pseudonymised.
What contempt risk applies if transparency pilot reports are published without pseudonymisation?
Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 makes it a contempt of court to publish information relating to private children proceedings. The Transparency Reporting Pilot launched 30 January 2023 allows accredited reporters to publish, but only after proper anonymisation. Accredited journalists and legal bloggers operating across the 19 pilot courts by mid-2024 must pseudonymise all named parties, children, and professionals before publication. Failure to do so risks contempt proceedings regardless of the reporter's accreditation status.