Family Justice in View was published by the Ministry of Justice and laid before Parliament on 16 December 2008. It represents the government’s intended policy on creating uniformity in approach to transparency in the family courts, and is based on two consultations undertaken over a period of two years.

In his statement to the House of Commons, justice secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the results of the consultations were inconclusive. What is clear from reading the report is that the majority of consultees expressed a desire for the family courts to be operated transparently and for them to be consistent in their approach to press reporting.

The recommendations of Family Justice in View are intended to raise public awareness of how decisions in the family courts are made, while at the same time protecting children from identification.

The report identifies the need to increase public understanding of court proceedings, the decisions made and the reasons. The report also identifies the need to monitor the standards of family court proceedings. This is commendable. To address these needs, the report positions the press as the appropriate tool.

Is the report suggesting that the press is an appropriate guardian of standards in the administration of family justice?

There can be no dispute that there should be a uniform approach to press access to family courts; that there should be an appropriate system of protecting the interests of children; and that there is a need to increase public confidence in the system. But can the press fulfil this role?

Under the proposals there will inevitably be cases where the press will not be given access. But if the press is positioned as a guardian of standards, would its exclusion threaten the confidence of the public in the proceedings? How will the press respond to such exclusion?

It is a basic tenet of the proposed policy that the government is confident that it is possible to anonymise reporting and judgments. If this is the case, is it inconsistent to reserve the discretion to exclude the press at all?

Might the answer be to adopt the New Zealand approach of having ‘accredited press’? The MoJ’s December press release refers to ‘accredited media’. Perhaps there is room to develop an argument that only accredited media be allowed into family courts. Any such argument would need to encompass the potential complexity and constitutional questions raised by any system to ‘accredit’ the press.

Call for inspectorateResolution, in its initial response to the first consultation paper, suggested the establishment of an expanded family courts inspectorate. This would comprise a predominately lay membership, charged with reporting on consistency within the family courts.

Currently the court inspectorate oversees the work of the courts administration, but its remit excludes anyone acting in a judicial capacity. This role could be enhanced to allow the inspectorate to consider the judiciary while ensuring safeguards to protect the constitutional independence of the judges. Such an inspectorate would not have the popular appeal of the press, but neither would it rely on the need to report stories that sell papers.

The inspectorate would have powers to attend hearings, as of right, and to make recommendations for improvements to the operation of the family courts. The inspectorate would regularly report on its inspections and publish its reports. The challenge would be for the inspectorate to communicate effectively with the public it serves.

This would provide a cohesive body to act as a proxy for the public. Such a body could work alongside the press to provide transparency in the administration of justice in the family courts.

Andrew Greensmith is head of family law at Dickson Haslam, a former national chair of Resolution and a member of the Resolution national executive