header-logo header-logo

The media and the family courts

06 September 2007 / Eleanor Harris
Issue: 7287 / Categories: Features , Media , Family
printer mail-detail

Government proposals to allow increased media access to family courts provoked consternation, and rightly so, says Eleanor Harris

The issue of public access to, and the reporting of, family proceedings has been the topic of public debate for a number of years. The high-profile criminal trials of Angela Cannings, Sally Clark and Trupti Patel raised general concern, not only about possible miscarriages of justice in the criminal courts but also in the family courts. The particular fear was that where such evidence was heard in private it could be more difficult to challenge the evidence, which could lead to miscarriages of justice.

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY

This issue was explored by the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ consultation paper Confidence and Confidentiality: Improving Transparency and Privacy in Family Courts in July 2006 (CP 11/06). The paper made the case for greater openness of family courts, arguing that this would result in better understanding of the work undertaken, increase the ability of the public to scrutinise the decisions and lead to a greater confidence

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll