Lawyers attack government plans to extend family reporting
Family lawyers have attacked government plans to extend the media’s right to report family cases, warning that they will clog the courts with preliminary hearings and lead to miscarriages of justice.
The media have been allowed to report on the process of family cases since April, but provisions in the Children, Schools and Families bill will extend this to allow journalists to report on the details of individual cases.
In the first phase of the legislation, most details will be reportable unless restricted by a judge, but the identities of the parties and other ‘sensitive personal information’ can only be reported with the judge’s permission. The media will be able to name any expert witnesses who have been paid for giving evidence.
However, a second phase will allow journalists to report sensitive information, and the criteria will be changed to make it more difficult for judges to restrict reporting. Journalists will be able to name all expert witnesses.
A briefing paper published last week by Robert George and Ceridwen Roberts of Oxford University warns that the new legislation ‘lacks sufficient clarity’, and could ‘put the privacy of vulnerable children at risk’. It suggests that the publication of anonymised judgments, currently being piloted in Leeds, Cardiff and Wolverhampton, could offer a better balance between public scrutiny and the protection of individuals involved.
Christina Blacklaws, Law Society council member for child law, said the reforms went ‘too far, too fast, and without proper consultation’.
She added: ‘There will be an increase in preliminary hearings. If you are dealing with a case about an urgent removal or return, or an urgent need for medical intervention, this could prevent the matter from being dealt with at the appropriate speed and lead to a miscarriage of justice.’
She added that there were already difficulties in finding expert witnesses and the prospect of experts being named would add to the problems.
Resolution spokeswoman Elspeth Thomson said that she had already seen one case where ‘much time and energy’ was spent arguing over whether a national newspaper should be allowed to report on proceedings, adding: ‘There are so many delays in the family justice system already, you do not need anything else.’
Leading family lawyer Caroline Little said that she was pleased the government had not pressed ahead with plans to allow full disclosure of court documents.
She added: ‘We do not think that any measures can sufficiently protect children from being identified, which could further harm them. The local press reporting in ethnic minority groups and rural areas is going to lead to identification.’
Comments
Government plans to extend family reporting
Nothing surprising in this article given that vocational lawyers were far from supportive of any change given their collegiate response to the original consultation ahead of the change of rules in April 2009.
Rather than rehearse the positions afresh here, please see a number of posts and comments on our blog under 'Journalists' tag at http://www.mckenziefriend.com/tag/journalists/
I am a Grandmother who would
I am a Grandmother who would like all the above named in this report then come back to me
and tell me Openness in the Family Courts. My Grandson birth certified name R*** J*** B***
Case Judgment High Court of Appeal
http://bailii.org./
Click England & Wales
click England &Wales court of appeal (civil division) Divisions
Click 1997
Scroll down July
Click B(A Minor) (1997) EWCA Civ 2190 25th July 1997
This judgement is accommpanied by Court of Appeal Certificate No 3370/97
Childs Name R*** B*** M******** FULL CARE ORDER IN THIS FALSE NAME
This case was first Cleveland Police Fracture & Bruising NO EVIDENCE NO CHARGES
Medical 48 hrs observation interviewed by Social Services NHS Written signed report discharge
letter from Dr McCarty sent home
Not even an aspirin for these life threatening injuries?
Attended Paediatrician Dr P Morrell Clinic for condition Cerebral Atrophy throughout Case
Prior to fall (due to jerking spasms) from mothers arms attended local GP 6 times eye condition,
jerking spasms, could not suck bottle, flat back of head, unusual cry, wringing of hands
sent to childs health clinic head measurement 25th Centile R*** was referred to local hospital told
if it fell to 9th Centile he would have terrible problems
Lifting reporting restrictions needs very serious consideration
The reluctance of many experienced children lawyers to support reporting children cases has nothing to do with protecting their own position. It is due to a concern that the children involved are those who need most protection. No system is perfect and the child care system certainly isn't. But exposing it to full unrestricted reporting would serve whose interests? Not the children's certainly. There would be a very significant danger that in both private and public law Children Act proceedings, the children would be used as a publicity weapon by both dissatisfied parents and other relatives and potentially the press itself. There maybe ae case for some degree of reporting -- but any step in that direction must be taken carefully after serious consideration and not a knee-jerk response.
To Wiltshire
To Wiltshire Solicitors
Family Law Cases are built up on possibilities and probabilities how can any parent answer these
accussations especially as in my Grandsons case injuries he had never received the evidence
being Skull X Ray, CT Scan, Full Body Scan, MRI Scan all in his birth certified name a medical
file which could not be used as the full case was in a childs name that did not exist. His birth
certified name only became into being in the second half of a split court case when the application
for full Care Order was being applied for the Guardian Ad Litem, NSPCC, Social Services Report
all carried my Grandsons birth certified name supporting the evidence as can be read on Bailli org
This case was also Legal Aided on my Grandsons birth certified name
Had we had one reporter in the Court he would have asked "WHAT IS THE CHILDS NAME?"
I have the full file because the realisation something untoward was going on and the challenge
to the legal. I ended being the MCKENZIE FRIEND Qc Focke handed me the file which I have
along with a Telexed copy of the 8 doctors signed agreed report with 2 signatures on which was
sent to his hotel the night before it was presented in court so 6 signatures appeared on it miracoulously overnight?
Reporters and openness is the only option to stop such injustice as has gone on in the past