- Openness of family courts is a ‘con trick’
- By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
- Times Online
- 10/04/2009 Make a Comment (4)
- Contributed by: MrNatural ( 10 articles in 2009 )
Jack Straw has been accused of a confidence trick over plans to open the family courts to the media.
John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, has warned that although the Justice Secretary’s new rules will allow the media to attend family court proceedings for the first time, reports cannot be published without the judge’s permission.
The media, groups campaigning for justice for families and the English public had each been taken in, he said. “Whether it is by Jack Straw or by forces of reaction in the judiciary – we have all been hoodwinked.”
The reforms will take effect from April 27 under rules that have just been published. Mr Hemming, who, with The Times, has been in the forefront of the campaign to open the family courts, said that the reforms brought some benefits, in that parents or children could tell journalists or their MP about court proceedings, but he added: “It remains that publication can only happen with the permission of the judge.”
In an interview with The Times in December, Mr Straw appeared to imply that the media would be allowed to report on cases as long as they did not name the parties or publish their personal details. “It will be open to parties to apply to court for specific reporting restrictions. But my hope is that the courts are reluctant to grant these,” he said.
Last month a senior family judge said that the media would continue to be denied the ability to report on the detail of cases. Sir Andrew McFarlane, a High Court judge, said that only reports of the “gist of proceedings rather than the detail of an individual case” would be allowed. The present reporting regime would remain in place and would be “unamended to accommodate the insertion of the media into the courtroom”, he said.
Sir Andrew added that the Government was not intending to ease restrictions to “give the green light to the reporting of human interest stories”. Because of the need to protect the identity of children, he said, the media would “face tough sanctions” if they reported the detail of any case. “The reporting will be about the system, rather than substance.”
Sir Andrew, a family judge who made his comments to a conference
held by Resolution, the family lawyers’ association, said that the changes would help to prevent ill-informed and inaccurate reporting. But he concluded: “The brave new world postApril . . . seems to be far more sophisticated and restricted than may at first sight have been understood by some journalists, the public at large and, for that matter, the legal profession.”
Announcing the reforms in December, Mr Straw stated that courts would retain powers to restrict attendance and what could be reported.
Sir Andrew said that journalists would face difficulties when confronted with a parent complaining about a miscarriage of justice. “Under the new scheme, the journalist is in no better position than they are now to evaluate the validity of the complaints that they are hearing.” He also said that when care and criminal proceedings were being held in parallel, a journalist would be unable to “report any of the substance of the care proceedings other than possibly the outcome, once the proceedings have fully concluded”. In a case involving serious injury or death, such as the Baby P hearing, the journalist who was privy to the case would not be able to report any detail.
Mr Straw strongly denied any intention to mislead. He said that the intention was to legislateto rationalise reporting restrictions but it would take primary legislation. He said: “It is nonsense for anyone to suggest that there has been any dubiety in the Government’s position. Time and again I have said that we will bring the current highly restrictive rules against reporting in respect of the High Court and county courts into line with the rules for family proceedings courts.
“Alongside the formal changes to the court rules, I have also wanted to ensure a change in the culture and practice of all courts – the High Court, county courts, and magistrates’ courts – towards greater openness, and I am confident that the overall effect of these changes will be to achieve that.”
John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, has warned that although the Justice Secretary’s new rules will allow the media to attend family court proceedings for the first time, reports cannot be published without the judge’s permission.
The media, groups campaigning for justice for families and the English public had each been taken in, he said. “Whether it is by Jack Straw or by forces of reaction in the judiciary – we have all been hoodwinked.”
The reforms will take effect from April 27 under rules that have just been published. Mr Hemming, who, with The Times, has been in the forefront of the campaign to open the family courts, said that the reforms brought some benefits, in that parents or children could tell journalists or their MP about court proceedings, but he added: “It remains that publication can only happen with the permission of the judge.”
In an interview with The Times in December, Mr Straw appeared to imply that the media would be allowed to report on cases as long as they did not name the parties or publish their personal details. “It will be open to parties to apply to court for specific reporting restrictions. But my hope is that the courts are reluctant to grant these,” he said.
Last month a senior family judge said that the media would continue to be denied the ability to report on the detail of cases. Sir Andrew McFarlane, a High Court judge, said that only reports of the “gist of proceedings rather than the detail of an individual case” would be allowed. The present reporting regime would remain in place and would be “unamended to accommodate the insertion of the media into the courtroom”, he said.
Sir Andrew added that the Government was not intending to ease restrictions to “give the green light to the reporting of human interest stories”. Because of the need to protect the identity of children, he said, the media would “face tough sanctions” if they reported the detail of any case. “The reporting will be about the system, rather than substance.”
Sir Andrew, a family judge who made his comments to a conference
held by Resolution, the family lawyers’ association, said that the changes would help to prevent ill-informed and inaccurate reporting. But he concluded: “The brave new world postApril . . . seems to be far more sophisticated and restricted than may at first sight have been understood by some journalists, the public at large and, for that matter, the legal profession.”
Announcing the reforms in December, Mr Straw stated that courts would retain powers to restrict attendance and what could be reported.
Sir Andrew said that journalists would face difficulties when confronted with a parent complaining about a miscarriage of justice. “Under the new scheme, the journalist is in no better position than they are now to evaluate the validity of the complaints that they are hearing.” He also said that when care and criminal proceedings were being held in parallel, a journalist would be unable to “report any of the substance of the care proceedings other than possibly the outcome, once the proceedings have fully concluded”. In a case involving serious injury or death, such as the Baby P hearing, the journalist who was privy to the case would not be able to report any detail.
Mr Straw strongly denied any intention to mislead. He said that the intention was to legislateto rationalise reporting restrictions but it would take primary legislation. He said: “It is nonsense for anyone to suggest that there has been any dubiety in the Government’s position. Time and again I have said that we will bring the current highly restrictive rules against reporting in respect of the High Court and county courts into line with the rules for family proceedings courts.
“Alongside the formal changes to the court rules, I have also wanted to ensure a change in the culture and practice of all courts – the High Court, county courts, and magistrates’ courts – towards greater openness, and I am confident that the overall effect of these changes will be to achieve that.”
Source: https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6069459.ece
yes the former mayor Ken is on this station too ( tosser) ho hum see you next time folks!
Men have become an unwanted / not needed commodity in today's society.
Most men are scared of their own shadow and are easily put aside by the legal system.
The fact is that given time the whole system will reverse and men and families (traditional families) will once again become the norm.
I believe this will happen after the current bitch system breaks down.
Unfortunately for this reversal to occur things need to get a lot worse.
Increase in crime (a result of fatherless children).
An escalation of physical and sexual assaults on women.
Loss of employment across the board (result of academic fuckwit globalisation legislation).
At some point in time the courts will not be able to cope, the remand centres will not cope, welfare handouts will not sustain the basic needs of the population and the military will not be capable of maintaining peace (even with lots of bullets, now made in china).
It’s not simply the family law problem. Idiots now control us. Academics who have little or no comprehension of how the actual world operates.
Look further than this immediate problem. It is not even the tip of the iceberg.
We are all in deep diabolical shit.
ITS TIME TO EXPLAIN TO THE ACADEMICS THAT THEY ARE WALKING ON VERY THIN ICE. (THE GUILOTINE CAN COME IN MANY SHAPES AND FORMS).
Mahatma Gandhi (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/gandhi.htm) did not raise his hand or make a single physical blow against the English filth.
His intelligence and determination resulted in the removal of the English government and hundreds of thousands of armed troops.
HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF! Over and over again.
pt
I can’t comment on the actual changes in legislation for reasons given in my comments on a similar article. (http://www.f4joz.com/news/newspage.php?yr=9&id=324).
However, the point of issue in all matters pertaining to justice is a simple one.
Why would any sane person expect academic fuckwits to be able to devise anything, let alone a functional justice system?
"The Law" as it is termed, is a whole lot of gibberish and claptrap written in terms well beyond the comprehension of everyday citizens .. and designed to allow the rich and their academic fuckwit brethren to control the masses.
It has absolutely nothing to do with justice which requires large amounts of dollars to achieve.
This sits well with these academic scum because they have access to money and legal advise which allows them to live free of the pains of legal abuse.
The French were the only humans with enough intelligence to act on this.
They simply cut off the heads of all the scum academics and so called aristocracy (including their offspring) and removed the problem.
Unfortunately the scum now have such a hold that they control the government (part of the scum) the courts (more of the scum) the military and the money markets.
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here