06 May 2010: Press still silenced, despite family court reforms, say lawyers
From The Times
May 6, 2010
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
One year after ground-breaking reforms that were meant to open thousands of hearings to the media, more family courts are now more closed to public scrutiny, it is claimed today.
Media organisations and lawyers both say that the campaign to open up the family courts has largely failed.
Changes rushed through Parliament before the election was announced will also make it even more difficult than before to report on the family courts. They predict that as a result, even fewer cases than now will be reported and only then, giving the broad gist of proceedings, rather than any detail.
One family lawyer, Rachel Atkins, of Schillings, told The Times that the recent changes were “a misguided and politically motivated fudge which has understandably satisfied neither side”.
The media could not report proceedings and the public was intimidated by the “possible threat of the media in court” from seeking access to justice. “Nowhere is this more apparent than in cases involving children,” she said.
The changes left uncertain what could be reported; would increase costs as litigants sought to block press access and, in some cases, imposed new limitations on what could be reported, she said.
Last autumn Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, pledged to bring in a new reporting regime that would make it easier for the press to report family cases, name witnesses and have access to evidence. But widespread and concerted opposition from senior judges downwards and including children’s groups led to his plans being substantially diluted. Provisions that slipped through in the “wash-up” of legislation in the final days before the last Parliament was dissolved leave proceedings still subject to anonmity provisions, including witnesses.
Further reforms to allow the media access to evidence will not be considered for another 18 months and will depend on the outcome of a review of the existing regime.
Mike Dodd, editor of Media Law, said that the proposals, which give local authority officials, social workers and medical staff automatic anonymity, are so complex that they will “reduce reporting of family cases, rather than increase it.”
The changes that were implemented had achieved the opposite effect from that originally wanted by Mr Straw, he added. “Rather than open family proceedings involving children to greater scrutiny, they succeeded in producing so-called reforms which surround attempts to report cases with a complex series of caveats and conditions.”
Far from boosting public confidence in family courts, he added, the provisions would undermine it.
May 6, 2010
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
One year after ground-breaking reforms that were meant to open thousands of hearings to the media, more family courts are now more closed to public scrutiny, it is claimed today.
Media organisations and lawyers both say that the campaign to open up the family courts has largely failed.
Changes rushed through Parliament before the election was announced will also make it even more difficult than before to report on the family courts. They predict that as a result, even fewer cases than now will be reported and only then, giving the broad gist of proceedings, rather than any detail.
One family lawyer, Rachel Atkins, of Schillings, told The Times that the recent changes were “a misguided and politically motivated fudge which has understandably satisfied neither side”.
The media could not report proceedings and the public was intimidated by the “possible threat of the media in court” from seeking access to justice. “Nowhere is this more apparent than in cases involving children,” she said.
The changes left uncertain what could be reported; would increase costs as litigants sought to block press access and, in some cases, imposed new limitations on what could be reported, she said.
Last autumn Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, pledged to bring in a new reporting regime that would make it easier for the press to report family cases, name witnesses and have access to evidence. But widespread and concerted opposition from senior judges downwards and including children’s groups led to his plans being substantially diluted. Provisions that slipped through in the “wash-up” of legislation in the final days before the last Parliament was dissolved leave proceedings still subject to anonmity provisions, including witnesses.
Further reforms to allow the media access to evidence will not be considered for another 18 months and will depend on the outcome of a review of the existing regime.
Mike Dodd, editor of Media Law, said that the proposals, which give local authority officials, social workers and medical staff automatic anonymity, are so complex that they will “reduce reporting of family cases, rather than increase it.”
The changes that were implemented had achieved the opposite effect from that originally wanted by Mr Straw, he added. “Rather than open family proceedings involving children to greater scrutiny, they succeeded in producing so-called reforms which surround attempts to report cases with a complex series of caveats and conditions.”
Far from boosting public confidence in family courts, he added, the provisions would undermine it.
