Cambridge Family Law Practice

The civil courts – those which handle non-criminal cases – have different divisions. Some handle financial disputes, others employment claims, and others: corporate law. But no branch receives more media attention than the family courts. Families are a human universal, after all – everyone has one, so the stories that unfold behind those court doors have a resonance to which we can all relate on some level. And if the case involves a celebrity that might attract clicks and viewers, so much the better as far as the media is concerned.

But journalists also love to grumble about the alleged secrecy of the family courts. Rare is an article on family court matters that doesn’t contain some reference to “secretive” judgements and closed doors. This is only half-true. By ‘secrecy’, the media means the reporting restrictions that are usually put in place in order to protect the privacy of individuals involved in each case. Under current regulations, accredited journalists can attend family court hearings but can only report what the presiding judge specifically allows them to. Decisions on what can and can’t be reported are made on a case-by-case basis, but generally include a ban on releasing:

• Any identifying information about children – including the names of their parents. In published judgements concerning divorce disputes, the entire family is normally identified solely by initials.
• Confidential, sensitive or very personal information.

If a media organisation wishes to report details not listed by the Judge, they need to apply for special permission in the Court of Appeal, making a compelling case there that their plans are in the public interest.

But as reasonable as these restrictions may seem, there is a competing pressure pushing against privacy: transparency. The Judiciary has long recognised that a widespread belief that a particular court is secretive will gradually undermine confidence in its rulings. For a number of years, therefore, efforts have been made to open the doors and increase access without compromising on privacy, and next year this ongoing initiative will be taken one step further still.

In a 12-month pilot scheme, beginning in late January, formally accredited journalists will be given freer, default access to family courts in the cities of Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle, unless the presiding Judge in each case specifically prohibits this. If he or she does not, reporters will be able to report on what they see and hear in the courts- as long as (and this is crucial) they continue to protect the privacy of the families involved in each case.

They will be able to interview families, as long as their comments are anonymised. Journalists will also be able to name lawyers and expert witnesses – but not any doctors or other medical professionals involved in the case. Some legal documents will be accessible. In care proceedings, reporters will be able to name the local authorities involved and the directors of the children’s services department at each, but not, in most cases, individual social workers.

The pilot scheme will be used to iron out any problems and identify necessary improvements before the wider reporting framework is rolled out nationally. Cardiff, Carlisle and Leeds were selected to provide a representative mix of communities in both rural and national regions.

Tricia Ashton of Cambridge Family Law Practice said:

“This is a significant development and it will be interesting to review the results of this trial. The family courts have historically had an uneasy relationship with the media, but there can be no doubt that greater transparency is in the public interest. Everyone who finds themselves involved in a family hearing must feel confident they will be treated fairly and reasonably.”