header-logo header-logo

Secrecy to end in family courts?

23 July 2013
Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Munby proposes that most family law judgments should be published

In a landmark reform, family law judgments including custody, care orders, the rehoming of children and Court of Protection judgments are to be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to do so.

The sweeping change is proposed by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, who has issued draft guidance that would allow thousands more written judgments to be published. The identities of children would remain protected.

Sir James proposes that the “starting point” for family and Court of Protection cases be that judgments will be published unless there are “compelling reasons” not to. Where a judge authorises publication, public authorities and expert witnesses should be named unless there are “compelling reasons” not to, and anonymity should not extend beyond protecting the privacy of the families involved unless there are “good reasons” to do so.

It is currently a contempt of court to publish a judgment in a family court case involving children or a Court of Protection judgment unless the judgment has been delivered in public or the judge has authorised publication.

Writing in his latest newsletter on Family Justice Modernisation, Sir James says: “I am determined that the new Family Court should not be saddled, as the family courts are at present, with the charge that we are a system of secret and unaccountable justice.

“The law is highly technical and far too complex. The need for reform has been recognised for at least 20 years. Too little has been done.”
Joanne Clarke, solicitor at Lester Aldridge, said: “This is a huge step forward for family law.

“Any change which brings about greater public awareness in the court process and belief in the court system is welcomed.”

Sir James said the draft guidance will be followed by further Guidance and then more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010). Changes to primary legislation are unlikely in the near future.

Comments on the draft guidance should be sent to Sir James’ private secretary Alex Clark at Alex.Clark@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk by early October 2013.
 

Issue: 7570 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
back-to-top-scroll