header-logo header-logo

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

Secrecy to end in family courts?

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The sweeping change is proposed by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, who has issued draft guidance that would allow thousands more written judgments to be published.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Sir James said the draft guidance will be followed by further Guidance and then more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family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Comments on the draft guidance should be sent to Sir James’ private secretary Alex Clark at Alex.Clark@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk by early October 2013.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

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll