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.’