- Family courts: now we can judge parents' stories for ourselves
- By Sarah Harman
- The Times
- 23/04/2009 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 29 articles in 2009 )
The opening up of family courts to the media is a step in the right direction, argues a senior family lawyer Sarah Harman
The reforms to allow the media access to most family court hearings from next Monday will bring to an end a secret jurisdiction in which not only did outsiders have no right to know anything of the proceedings — even the parties themselves could not discuss the detail or even outline of their cases without being at risk of contempt.
But the new rules allowing media access represent only a limited opening of the family court doors. There is still some way to go before complete transparency can be claimed because the dissemination of information by media to the public at large will require the permission of the court. The presumption has shifted from proceedings being behind closed doors — unless either the media or the parties went through the tortuous process of persuading the court to allow some detail into the public domain — to one where the court will be expected to allow dissemination unless there is a good reason not to.
Open justice is a cornerstone of democracy and the media represent the eyes and ears of the public in their role in reporting the detail of court proceedings. It may seem strange that the family courts in England and Wales have interpreted the law so strictly that even the passing on of general information about a family case by aggrieved parents to their MP was contempt.
As the welfare of the children is the basis of family law, the rationale for such a degree of secrecy is their need for confidentiality. The new rules have been strongly opposed by most family lawyers who fear the impact of the media spotlight on the vulnerable sections of the community who use the family courts at a time of trauma in their lives. Yet the rules represent a reasonable attempt to balance the competing needs of the public’s right to know how such an important institution is functioning and the protection of children’s privacy.
Related Links
When private lives are made public
The leading force towards transparency has come from people aggrieved about how they have been treated by the courts — often fathers who allege judges are biased against them or parents who say that children have been removed from their families on the basis of unreliable expert evidence. The truth of such assertions is difficult to assess because the information allowed out of the court is often incomplete. Family judgments are still rarely reported and in any event, they represent the judge’s view of the case, and that may well not satisfy a parent who feels that important evidence has been sidelined.
The media, for better or worse, are the only conduit to make a full report of how a case unfolds available to the wider public.
Those who have campaigned for transparency and believe that its lack has allowed serious injustices to be hidden are unhappy that court permission is needed before any material is reported by the media. They feel that the rules do not open the court doors wide enough. But for the process of change to work, it has to be accepted by those in the system and the present rules are a reasonable compromise at least for a period of transition.
What is important is that the public at large should be able to know what issues are being dealt with in our family courts and how sensitively and effectively.
It will be the court’s role to provide an appropriate filter to facilitate the process by which we will all get to know more about how it deals with the vital but problematic issues, such as when the state should intervene and remove children feared at risk of abuse from their families, but to ensure sensitive details of the parties that could identify them and harm children are not allowed to be reported.
Some judges have grumbled about the time that might be spent in scrutinising media copy in the approval process, and if the media were to turn out in large numbers for family cases there would be a logistical problem. It should be remembered that the family proceedings court, which is the lowest tier, has never been closed to the media and yet very infrequently does the press venture in. It has neither the resources nor the appetite to cover the run-of-the-mill family case.
The experience in New Zealand, where the family courts were opened to the media a few years ago, has shown that they have little interest except in big-issue cases. Closer to home, the family courts in Scotland have never been closed and there are few reports of media intrusion.
The new rules may be a disappointment to some and a worry to others. But they do represent a necessary step which, with a light touch from the judiciary and a bit of media restraint, will result in a better understanding of our family courts while protecting the interests of children.
The author is senior partner at Harman & Harman
The reforms to allow the media access to most family court hearings from next Monday will bring to an end a secret jurisdiction in which not only did outsiders have no right to know anything of the proceedings — even the parties themselves could not discuss the detail or even outline of their cases without being at risk of contempt.
But the new rules allowing media access represent only a limited opening of the family court doors. There is still some way to go before complete transparency can be claimed because the dissemination of information by media to the public at large will require the permission of the court. The presumption has shifted from proceedings being behind closed doors — unless either the media or the parties went through the tortuous process of persuading the court to allow some detail into the public domain — to one where the court will be expected to allow dissemination unless there is a good reason not to.
Open justice is a cornerstone of democracy and the media represent the eyes and ears of the public in their role in reporting the detail of court proceedings. It may seem strange that the family courts in England and Wales have interpreted the law so strictly that even the passing on of general information about a family case by aggrieved parents to their MP was contempt.
As the welfare of the children is the basis of family law, the rationale for such a degree of secrecy is their need for confidentiality. The new rules have been strongly opposed by most family lawyers who fear the impact of the media spotlight on the vulnerable sections of the community who use the family courts at a time of trauma in their lives. Yet the rules represent a reasonable attempt to balance the competing needs of the public’s right to know how such an important institution is functioning and the protection of children’s privacy.
Related Links
When private lives are made public
The leading force towards transparency has come from people aggrieved about how they have been treated by the courts — often fathers who allege judges are biased against them or parents who say that children have been removed from their families on the basis of unreliable expert evidence. The truth of such assertions is difficult to assess because the information allowed out of the court is often incomplete. Family judgments are still rarely reported and in any event, they represent the judge’s view of the case, and that may well not satisfy a parent who feels that important evidence has been sidelined.
The media, for better or worse, are the only conduit to make a full report of how a case unfolds available to the wider public.
Those who have campaigned for transparency and believe that its lack has allowed serious injustices to be hidden are unhappy that court permission is needed before any material is reported by the media. They feel that the rules do not open the court doors wide enough. But for the process of change to work, it has to be accepted by those in the system and the present rules are a reasonable compromise at least for a period of transition.
What is important is that the public at large should be able to know what issues are being dealt with in our family courts and how sensitively and effectively.
It will be the court’s role to provide an appropriate filter to facilitate the process by which we will all get to know more about how it deals with the vital but problematic issues, such as when the state should intervene and remove children feared at risk of abuse from their families, but to ensure sensitive details of the parties that could identify them and harm children are not allowed to be reported.
Some judges have grumbled about the time that might be spent in scrutinising media copy in the approval process, and if the media were to turn out in large numbers for family cases there would be a logistical problem. It should be remembered that the family proceedings court, which is the lowest tier, has never been closed to the media and yet very infrequently does the press venture in. It has neither the resources nor the appetite to cover the run-of-the-mill family case.
The experience in New Zealand, where the family courts were opened to the media a few years ago, has shown that they have little interest except in big-issue cases. Closer to home, the family courts in Scotland have never been closed and there are few reports of media intrusion.
The new rules may be a disappointment to some and a worry to others. But they do represent a necessary step which, with a light touch from the judiciary and a bit of media restraint, will result in a better understanding of our family courts while protecting the interests of children.
The author is senior partner at Harman & Harman
Source: https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6143180.ece?Submitted=true
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