Family Courts: Justice Committee Report Evokes Mixed response from NS

The NS welcomes the Justice Committee’s conclusion that the measures relating to family court reporting in the Children Schools & Families Act 2010 should not be implemented. The Committee report referred to the NS evidence that the provisions in the Act, if brought into force unamended, would have resulted in a renewed regime of secrecy - instead of opening up the family courts, as originally intended. The NS had said this “will not only fail to deliver the desired public accountability but will represent a major reduction in what can now be lawfully published and will actually further reduce public debate and discussion of the family justice system”.

However, the NS is disappointed that in going forward the Committee report appears to again present the impression that the desire for greater openness and accountability in the family justice system, and that of preserving privacy for the families involved, particularly children, are positions which are necessarily polarised. Sue Oake, senior legal adviser at the Newspaper Society, said “The media have repeatedly stressed that they entirely accept the need to ensure anonymity for the children and families concerned and we are disappointed that once again this does not appear to have been sufficiently acknowledged.”

In its evidence to the Committee, referring to the discussions around the 2010 Act, the NS said the debate had been “sidetracked” by pressure from those seeking to restrict access and impose increased reporting restrictions, and that it had been a matter of great concern that this pressure in many cases seemed to stem from a lack of understanding of the law applicable to court reporting generally. The NS evidence pointed out, “There was a clear desire on the part of all those involved – media, family court practitioners and professionals, and government – to protect the privacy of the families involved, particularly children.  At times this debate seemed to dominate all other considerations – and at times was conducted in a manner which overlooked the fact that the Government proposals at all times included provision for total anonymity for the families and children involved.  Much of the strongly-felt anxiety and concern apparently stemmed from this misplaced perception.  There was also a strong lobby to maintain automatic anonymity for professionals involved in the system who did not wish their identities to be reported when giving evidence - again, despite the fact that the existing law would allow any court to protect their identity in individual cases if necessary.”

The Committee report remarks that  “there is a danger that justice in secret could allow injustice to children, or a perception of injustice”. The NS believes that what is needed now is an informed and calm debate as to how best to achieve the objective of increased transparency and accountability by enabling the media to properly report family proceedings, whilst safeguarding the legitimate expectations of privacy for the families involved. 

For further information contact Sue Oake, Pera department, 0207 632 7463 or email Sue_oake@newspapersoc.org.uk