header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009 / Edward Floyd
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Behind closed doors

Edward Floyd considers the pros & cons of a more transparent family justice system

There is a great deal of momentum towards increasing transparency in the family courts. The government held two consultations in 2006 and 2007, with the most recent findings published on 16 December 2008 in the Ministry of Justice's publication, Family Justice in View. The media has waged a campaign against a system which it alleges consists of secretive proceedings held in private, a lack of accountability for public servants, and an absence of public scrutiny of decisions. This is not a new debate, and the longevity of the discourse may lie in the fact that there is a corresponding and sometimes competing imperative to respect the Art 8 rights of privacy of the individuals involved in family cases.

The Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, introduced his proposals in his oral address to the House of Commons as “strik[ing] the right balance in providing a more open, transparent and accountable system and while protecting children and families during a difficult and traumatic time

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll