- When the stakes are so high, parents want to be heard!
- By Camilla Cavendish
- The Times
- 10/04/2009 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Daveyone ( 29 articles in 2009 )
The detail of the Ministry of Justice reforms, published this week, makes clear for the first time that although the family courts will be opened to the press on April 27, they will not be quite as open as we had expected. Buried in a short paragraph is the information that judges will have wide grounds to refuse journalists permission to publish the details of a case they have just heard.
This is the opposite of what we had anticipated: that publication would be routine unless expressly forbidden by the judge. The onus will now be on journalists to convince judges to let them print. It should be the other way round. For if the strength of opposition to The Times’s campaign for openness is anything to go by, many judges — particularly in lower courts — will choose not to allow the public to see what is being done in their name. Reporters, faced with having to make representations, may decide not to enter the courtroom at all. And there may be more miscarriages of justice.
The balance between openness and privacy was never an easy one, since family proceedings deal with deeply intimate, personal details. Children are entitled to have their identities protected, but it has always been the intention to give the parties anonymity, and to give judges discretion to impose reporting restrictions in extreme circumstances.
However, many of the parents who have come to me do not want to be anonymous. They want to be heard. They are convinced that expert witnesses and/or local authorities have been able to distort the case against them because their hearings are behind closed doors. When a parent faces losing a child forever, the stakes are very high.
It is strange for Government to set a precedent by opening the courts and then to insert such a mealy-mouthed loophole at the eleventh hour. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, strongly endorsed open justice in his interview with The Times in December. He said that justice should be seen to be done, and that professionals should be accountable. Some judges will choose to let journalists publish ecause they believe that the only way to restore public confidence in the family justice system is to let in the light. We must hope that many of them do. Our campaign for openness continues. We have got our foot in the door but we will have to keep prising it open.
Camilla Cavendish’s series on family courts won Campaign of the Year at the 2009 British Press Awards
Have your say
When a judge is confident that he/she is making the right decisions in the best interest of all memebers of the family, then he/she has no problem with allowing Justice to be seen, to be done.
The choice to have your case heard in open is the choice of parents as the Judge is merely a referee.
Portia Barrett., London, UK
I don't find it strange especially coming from the chameleon of Labour politics. Straw has tried re-inventing himself many times from pro Burkas to anti Burkas, pro Iraq war to anti Iraq war and many other instances. He was never going to change the rules in the family courts, period.
Mike, Alicante, Spain
This is the opposite of what we had anticipated: that publication would be routine unless expressly forbidden by the judge. The onus will now be on journalists to convince judges to let them print. It should be the other way round. For if the strength of opposition to The Times’s campaign for openness is anything to go by, many judges — particularly in lower courts — will choose not to allow the public to see what is being done in their name. Reporters, faced with having to make representations, may decide not to enter the courtroom at all. And there may be more miscarriages of justice.
The balance between openness and privacy was never an easy one, since family proceedings deal with deeply intimate, personal details. Children are entitled to have their identities protected, but it has always been the intention to give the parties anonymity, and to give judges discretion to impose reporting restrictions in extreme circumstances.
However, many of the parents who have come to me do not want to be anonymous. They want to be heard. They are convinced that expert witnesses and/or local authorities have been able to distort the case against them because their hearings are behind closed doors. When a parent faces losing a child forever, the stakes are very high.
It is strange for Government to set a precedent by opening the courts and then to insert such a mealy-mouthed loophole at the eleventh hour. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, strongly endorsed open justice in his interview with The Times in December. He said that justice should be seen to be done, and that professionals should be accountable. Some judges will choose to let journalists publish ecause they believe that the only way to restore public confidence in the family justice system is to let in the light. We must hope that many of them do. Our campaign for openness continues. We have got our foot in the door but we will have to keep prising it open.
Camilla Cavendish’s series on family courts won Campaign of the Year at the 2009 British Press Awards
Have your say
When a judge is confident that he/she is making the right decisions in the best interest of all memebers of the family, then he/she has no problem with allowing Justice to be seen, to be done.
The choice to have your case heard in open is the choice of parents as the Judge is merely a referee.
Portia Barrett., London, UK
I don't find it strange especially coming from the chameleon of Labour politics. Straw has tried re-inventing himself many times from pro Burkas to anti Burkas, pro Iraq war to anti Iraq war and many other instances. He was never going to change the rules in the family courts, period.
Mike, Alicante, Spain
Source: https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6069466.ece
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here