The family courts opened their doors to the press this week, of course – well, sort of. Afua Hirsch wrote the other day about what she couldn’t report, and Natasha Phillips thought the change was much ado about nothing. John Bolch has reservations, summarised initial reactions and told some home truths.
I must admit, my initial reaction to this change was a slightly typical lawyer’s knee-jerk: there are good reasons for family hearings to be in private, I thought, and wanting “openness” is at best a desire to rewrite the rules for rewriting’s sake, at worst a victory for Fathers4Justice. But on reflection, I think I was guilty of pure knee-jerkery. I’m sure Afua is right that the rules can’t stay as they are – reporters must be allowed to report something about what goes on in family courts if there’s to be any point in the change. But perhaps a gradual, step-by-step change is a sensible approach. Letting reporters in will not prevent accusations that the family courts represent a conspiracy against justice, but they may make it less likely the general public will listen to them.
Here are the amending rules, by the way. Something that interests me is that access is limited to
duly accredited representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations
The government’s press release says this means the family courts will be open to those with a press card from the UK Press Card Authority. I’m not sure that’s right: there may be a definition of news gathering and reporting organisation in the Family Proceedings Rules (I couldn’t find one), but that phrase is not defined in the amending rules, and in its natural meaning doesn’t obviously cover freelance journalists, say, unless on a specific assignment. And even many publications that might well be interested in the family courts – women’s magazines, say – can hardly be called news gathering organisations. I wonder what media lawyers are advising journalists about this.
Interestingly, the government says bloggers are excluded. First, I’m not sure that’s really correct: bloggers can now be admitted to organisations that are “gatekeepers” to the press card scheme, and anyway, loads of proper journalists have blogs. Bloggers aren’t excluded at all. But anyway, why should the government want to exclude bloggers? Of course I know that if just anyone with a blog could turn up, that would include loads of obsessive crazies, ignoring all the rules and typing in green ink about how family judges are really lizards. But the entire blogosphere is not like that, and it’s wrong for a government which claims to be friendly to the development of new media to take that instinctive attitude.
There’s no shortage of responsible family blawgers: they can and should be allowed to apply for access to the courts under this scheme. Let’s hope that’s among the changes the government gradually makes.
I’d have thought that most of the current family blawgers are more likely to be acting in the cases than sitting in to report on them?
I’d hate to see the guidance that tried to separate the ‘responsible family blawger’ from the green ink, Comic Sans and CAPITALS brigade. They’d have to define blog (or even blawg) for a start, and then ‘responsible’ – that’s a minefield.
I’m not sure you do have to do all that defining, NL. Why not just have a way of applying for exceptional permission for access, and anyone who wants to write about family law can apply, bu they make it clear they’ll only grant special permission to people who can show evidence of their interest and responsible attitude in e.g. a blog?
But then who is assessing their responsibility? Does one present one’s last 5 posts or so to the MoJ? Or the Judge?
Someone would be doing the defining, with or without guidance.
While we bloggers are a relatively new thing, lacking the institutional and financial clout of the press, we also do lack such an easily identifiable sign of ‘validity’ as a press card and I would have some sympathy with whoever ended up trying to sort out the serious from the fruit-bats. (Perhaps something the Freelegalweb project might help with?)
As it happens I have a Press Card… have had fore some time…. but I can’t really see me nipping into the Family Courts to watch people squabbling over money and children – which much of family law appears now to be.
The Press will get bored with it… although The Times appeared to visit every family court in the country this last week.
Much ado about nothing may well prove to be the case…… I suspect.
What I shall be using my press card for, however, is to get a closer look at Poloice and what thery get up to. A press card can be quite useful at Police cordons and in Police stations, I am told.
Are you sure that there aren’t any lizards on the high court bench? What happened to diversity?
That’s the trouble with this government and the present judicioary… all talk and no action…. I may have to put in a FOI request to Jack Straw to ask how many lizards are currently employed by or through The Ministry of Justice….
This reform, limited as it is, is one of the better things done by Comrade Straw. There is considerable misunderstanding in the public about the procedures and processes used in child care cases. For example, there is the view that judges always defer to “experts” such as social workers, psychologists etc. If the oxygen of publicity helps to clear up some of this misunderstanding then so much the better.
There is no good reason to report the details of child care cases and there is even less reason to permit observers to see the documentation (often copious) which is presented to the courts. Surely, the intimate details of the family life of a baby or little child should not be exposed to the often prurient public eye.
Whilst it is not an exact parallel, it is interesting to see how “Eady’s Law” is growing to keep from public view the dubious activities of celebrities whilst the law seems to be moving toward revealing the minutiae of the life of some innocent child.
Straw’s reform is good and it ought to be allowed to develop incrementally and sensibly but never at the expense of embarrassment to a child who may of course gain access to the case papers etc. in later life.
HoL talks of blawgers / bloggers from being excluded from the family courts under the new rules …
… what about law students?
Say, if a law student wanted to write a dissertation about how the family courts worked under this new system?
“… at worst a victory for Fathers4Justice.”
not sure why this is worst. Are F4J intrinsically bad ?
Interesting point about freelancers – it had not occurred to me that although all press card holders will be 'duly accredited' not all press card holders will be 'representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations'.
However, its unlikely to be the subject of argument since both bloggers and freelancers could be permitted under rule 10.28(3)(g) as 'any other person whom the court permits to be present'.
Regarding the comment concerning law students – law students are routinely permitted into private court hearings when accompanying a qualified lawyer but they are still bound by the same rules as everyone else regarding confidentiality & publication.
Gyg3s: I agree about law students – and academics. Perhaps serious academic researchers are admitted currently; I hope so.
Anon: I think F4J is intrinsically bad, yes. Or should I say was intrinsically bad? The stunts they did always had a creepy feeling, to me. The whole thing seemed obsessive, and I used to predict in conversation with friends that it’d turn violent. I was entirely unsurprised by the allegations about the Leo Blair thing and reports that they’ve harrassed CAFCASS staff, including tying one up. I think F4J is nasty.
Lucy: great, if the courts really will admit bloggers. I bet if you or Jon Bolch turned up, though, you wouldn’t get in. Want to try?
Ah – no – you see, what I SAID was that the courts COULD let bloggers in. I’m under no illusions that they WOULD. Crumbs, I wouldn’t let me in (or Bolch for that matter!).
No, the power is there but I doubt the discretion is likely to be exercised other than exceptionally, perhaps for an established and respected journalist who is between jobs or working freelance.
Lucy (apologies if I’m commenting using a different ID to earlier comment)