New publication rules “should increase transparency in family courts”
Article Type: Court paper From: International Journal of Law and Management, Volume 57, Issue 6
New regulations, which will come into force on February 3rd, will see a larger number of family court hearings published in the press.
Sir James Munby, who heads the Court of Protection and the Family Courts, issued guidance on January 16th that he intends will bring about a significant change to the amount of transparency within the family court system.
While the number of published family court judgements will increase, some of these will be in an anonymous form, such as those involving people who cannot make their own decisions about living arrangements and medical decisions.
As a result of the guidance, judges will be expected to permit the publishing of all judgements in the Court of Protection and the Family Courts that are deemed to be in the public interest, regardless of whether the media or another party has requested its publication.
Individual judges will be free to decide the terms by which publication will be permissible, but should have compelling reasons to forbid the publication of most judgements.
Sir James has been pushing for increased transparency for a long time. In April 2013, he issued a statement that revealed he was “determined” to see the reporting of and access to family proceedings improve.
Current family courts are viewed as “secret and unaccountable”, he argued, expressing his ambition that the new Family Court will not be seen in this way.
Secret justice in family courts – case studies
The secret nature of family courts has impacted the utility of public debates into UK family law, with Sir James noting that the media cannot be blamed entirely for inaccuracies if they are not provided with full access to court judgements on a particular case.
In December, it was revealed that a pregnant Italian woman was forced to have a caesarean by the Court of Protection after Essex social services succeeded in a high court order. Alessandra Pacchieri, who had bipolar disorder, had failed to take medication and had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act, later pleaded with family court judge Roderick Newton to let her keep the child. While the judge said that she was convincing and coherent, he agreed that her daughter – now 15 months old – should be put up for adoption. The hearings were held in secret, and similar forced caesareans and adoptions may have occurred previously without the public’s knowledge.
Although this was one of the biggest news stories involving the secretive hearings, other family court judgements have reached the press and received criticism. It was recently revealed that an “irreproachable” father has spent £100,000 in a 12-year court battle to see his daughter. Despite the fact that the courts have made 82 separate orders stating he should be allowed to see the unnamed girl, the mother is still preventing him from doing so.
Secrecy in the family courts can see people punished by up to two years in jail for contempt of court if they discuss cases. Earlier in 2013, a father was jailed for 28 days for sending the son he raised a happy 21st birthday on Facebook, as the family courts prevented him from discussing an eight-year-old divorce publicly or even naming his sons. His sons condemned the ruling and “ludicrous” gagging order.
Stacey Aston - Bedford, UK
About the author
Stacey Aston studies UK employment law and reviews UK law on behalf of a team of personal injury solicitors (Blackburn). She is particularly interested in health and safety laws. She has been researching employment laws for many years after a friend suffered an injury due to workplace safety issues. Stacey Aston can be contacted at: staceyaston8@gmail.com
