As part of my determination to ensure that the justice system is as open and transparent as possible – and therefore accountable to the people it serves – media organisations will for the first time be able to attend proceedings of all the family courts as of Monday (27 April).
Jack Straw
The media has a critical role to play in ensuring that justice is seen to be done and it is right that we lift the veil on the important and very sensitive work of the family courts.
Unfortunately there has been some misinterpretation of what we are doing in this year, and I’m afraid The Lawyer’s article ‘Family Court transparency: has New Labour reneged on its promise?’ falls into this trap.
In my statement to the House of Commons on 16 December, and in the consultation response document ‘Family Justice in View’ published on the same day, I set out the overall package of changes:
* media attendance at family proceedings across all tiers of court (except, for the time being, adoption proceedings)
* pilots for the provision of more information to parties to proceedings, and anonymised judgments made available to the wider public
* a new legislative framework for reporting restrictions
* revised provisions for the disclosure of information in children cases, to make it easier for parties to seek the help they need
Overall, these measures demonstrate my firm commitment to opening up the family courts, and they represent a significant change from the current position. I have always been clear that the measures would have to be introduced in stages, not least because some of the changes need primary legislation.
The first phase – the provisions for media attendance and disclosure – is being implemented today, just four months after my announcement. I am very grateful to all those who have ensured a successful launch, particularly the Rules Committees in developing the new court rules, and court staff in preparing for the new arrangements. The significance of this change is that media attendance is now the default position in all family courts. The practice direction to support the new rules, issued by the President of the Family Division, makes clear that the media have a right of attendance and can be excluded only in the limited circumstances set out in the rules. It is not our intention that discussions about whether or not any media wishing to present should be allowed to stay should take up a lot of court time, although if parties do raise any objections it is of course absolutely right that the media should be allowed to make their case for staying. Some people may be concerned about the media being present but that concern is not in itself sufficient reason to have them excluded – there must be a reason in relation to one of the prescribed exclusion provisions.
The second phase will be the information pilots. These will start as soon as the necessary procedures and security provisions are agreed and in place.
The third phase will be reporting restrictions. Given the complexity of the existing reporting restriction legislation, we need amendments to primary legislation to ensure that a clear and comprehensive scheme is in place across all tiers of court. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time is available, but I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
Your article rightly makes the point that that there is a careful balance to be struck between transparency and privacy. That is why I was very clear when I made my statement that there will continue to be some restrictions on what can be reported, now and when we have introduced new legislation. It would be wholly inappropriate to allow reporting of every detail, especially of identity, of all family proceedings – parties to proceedings and children have a right to privacy and we must, and will, respect that.
Overall, this package of measures will deliver a fundamental shift in the openness of family courts, and is far from the “damp squib” suggested in your article. There is a very wide range of very strongly held views on the issues, from those opposed to any opening up to those who argue for full access and unlimited reporting. Neither extreme is sustainable and I believe that what this Government is doing represents a fair way forward for everyone.
Jack Straw MP is Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
There is a real tension between increasing public confidence in the family law system and respecting the privacy of those who find themselves, often though no fault of their own, caught up within it. Whilst the new rules are a step in the right direction, I am not at all convinced that they will achieve their aim since the tight restrictions on reporting the specifics of a case, requirement for anonymisation and permission to report proceedings, place a strait jacket on the press from the outset.
There is a real tension between, on the one hand, understanding the judicial decision making process in proceedings affecting families and, on the other, picking over the detail of individuals’ private affairs. Whilst the first is in the public interest, the second is just of interest to the public.
Disclosure of a large number of our clients’ affairs certainly isn’t in the public interest and I foresee a significant amount of judicial time being spent over the coming weeks adjudicating on the right of access of the press rather than the real issues in dispute
“Transparency is a laudable aim but at a time when the family Courts, with their ever-diminishing budgets, are already struggling to function effectively one wonders how damaging more bureaucracy will be.”
“The wider public may, if cases are accurately reported, have more confidence in the family justice system. But for those actually embroiled in it, how much confidence will they get from experiencing delays, poor facilities, lost Court papers, wrongly timetabled hearings and the like? In our view this is what the Government needs to address.”
“For all of these reasons, avoiding Court will become a much more attractive option. This latest change to the way Family Courts function is likely to give Mediation and collaborative law, both tried and tested ways of resolving disputes outside of the Court process, a further boost. Alternative Dispute Resolution could therefore become the norm rather than the exception.”
If the rules on what the journalists can report requires primarily legislation whic h in not yet in place what the journalists sitting in court from Monday suppose to do? How will they know what they can report and what they can ? It does sound like the usual shambles we are only too familar with from this government whic h is strong on promises feeble on delivery!
This is just another “initiative” which looks all glossy on the cover but in reality is a little naff. It doesn’t matter how you spin it Mr Straw, this does very little to change things.
Despite Jack Straw has announcing that family court hearings in county courts and the High Court are to be opened to the media from 27 April it appears that top Judges and solicitors are reluctant to a change the Family law ‘gravy train’ and family law practitioners and Government are try to sell families down the river
The secrecy surrounding the family court systems encourages bad practice’
New Fathers 4 Justice demand a completely open Family court system and if that means storming family court hearings like in Bristol last June then we WILL!!!
http://www.newfathers4justice.com
I have been involved in ongoing proceedings for many years. I do not agree that being unable to report details of a case will prevent the public gaining a true picture of how family proceedings are conducted. My experience has been that the main failings in family courts have been:
1. Lack of judicial continuity.
2. Failure to enforce the orders of the court.
3. Delay in resolving contested issues.
4. Over-reliance on opinions of CAFCASS.
5. Failure to distinguish between opinion and fact.
6. Failure to timetable a case and ensure speedy resolution.
None of the above are reliant upon the details of a case and could easily be observed and reported upon without the risk of disclosing personal details. The failings of the family courts are very broad and the way a case is conducted in court will be very quickly picked up by an able reporter.
I therefore have every confidence that the very presence of a court reporter will be sufficient to expose these faults and maybe even sufficient to prevent miscarriages of justices in the first place.
I dont think anyone was suggesting media exposure on family skeletons…but surely in the name of justice and fairness the media could publicise the main bones of contention between
parties. As it is these disputes on many occasions that are ignored, suppressed or simply dismissed as time of course seems always to be a factor.
Moving on I believe it to be vital that professionals that commit perjury, whether it be a social worker, expert witness, cafcass etc should be named publicly.
There should also be allowances for the media to report miscarriages of justice if parents feel this is the case, especially when their child has been removed. Let us not neglect the fact that a large portion of parents have their children removed based upon the probability that abuse may occur in the future.
The parents, of which there are thousands, that have already lost their children through the courts, should not be forgotten either Mr Straw as they are the ones that are silenced by the state but need to speak out about the horrendous treatment their families have suffered….
The family courts, if I may be so bold generates such an extortionate amount of money with every case. Indeed for the whole internal mechanism to work effectively there are an enormous amount of professionals in social care,health,legal,educational,secretarial,not to mention fostercarers and outside sectors.
Just strikes me, the vast number of people who would lose their jobs and livelihoods they are accustomed to, if less children were taken into care……
Right, that opens the door for psychologists and family education to study and analyze the patterns of imbalance, which affects the family and the impact on children, especially from the open discussion and media
Having been through family proceedings as a child, I can honestly say that lifting the veil on the family court to an extent that parties to the case are identified could only be detrimental to the welfare of a child. The problem is and always has been a lack of resources, for example the significant lack of social workers, the lack of funding to promote family relations and the lack of support for families whe are experiencing problems. Everything has an impact on family life and in these times when many are facing unemployment etc the issues can only get worse. It is essential that the government focus on the root of the problem and provide assistance before the matter ever needs to be addressed by the courts.