Media in the Family Courts
28th April 2009 by: David Lillywhite
From Monday 27 April 2009, the family courts in England and Wales have been open to accredited representatives from the media. This initiative was championed by the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, in an effort to increase the public’s understanding of the family court system which has previously been closed off to both journalists and the public.
This means that for the first time, reporters will be able to observe the work of the family courts from cases involving divorce and financial settlements to those that concern the care of children. In light of the recent furore surrounding Baby P, advocates of this development have argued that such cases will be less and less likely now that they are opened up to greater scrutiny. Opponents of this increased transparency continue to cite the invasion of the parties’ privacy as argument enough for the "intrusion" to be abandoned.
It is worth noting that the judiciary have retained wide-ranging powers to limit what can be reported by the media in certain cases. In addition, while current safeguards prevent anything being published that could identify a child in a case, legislation remains in force that prevents members of the medical profession or case workers in a matter being named. This has led to some media outlets decrying these reforms as essentially being useless to them but there are plans to amend the current legislation to lift these restrictions. Jack Straw has not yet legislated to remove the reporting restrictions in family Courts so for the time being the new rules for the media do not take them beyond attending a family hearing without permission of the judge.
Opening up the family courts to the media is clearly a bold step even with the existing restrictions. There is a fine balance to be maintained between raising greater awareness of the work that the family courts carry out whilst retaining the degree of privacy that clients have come to expect from the system. Judges will be expected to exercise their discretion in a pragmatic fashion and face a significant level of scrutiny regarding any decision to let a matter be reported in the media.
This means that for the first time, reporters will be able to observe the work of the family courts from cases involving divorce and financial settlements to those that concern the care of children. In light of the recent furore surrounding Baby P, advocates of this development have argued that such cases will be less and less likely now that they are opened up to greater scrutiny. Opponents of this increased transparency continue to cite the invasion of the parties’ privacy as argument enough for the "intrusion" to be abandoned.
It is worth noting that the judiciary have retained wide-ranging powers to limit what can be reported by the media in certain cases. In addition, while current safeguards prevent anything being published that could identify a child in a case, legislation remains in force that prevents members of the medical profession or case workers in a matter being named. This has led to some media outlets decrying these reforms as essentially being useless to them but there are plans to amend the current legislation to lift these restrictions. Jack Straw has not yet legislated to remove the reporting restrictions in family Courts so for the time being the new rules for the media do not take them beyond attending a family hearing without permission of the judge.
Opening up the family courts to the media is clearly a bold step even with the existing restrictions. There is a fine balance to be maintained between raising greater awareness of the work that the family courts carry out whilst retaining the degree of privacy that clients have come to expect from the system. Judges will be expected to exercise their discretion in a pragmatic fashion and face a significant level of scrutiny regarding any decision to let a matter be reported in the media.
Add new comment