header-logo header-logo

15 May 2015 / Christopher Butler , Harriet Errington
Issue: 7652 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Stop press

nlj_may_15_butler

Christopher Butler & Harriet Errington examine the court’s discretion to exclude media representatives from family proceedings

It is a fundamental principle at the heart of the rule of law in England and Wales that court proceedings should be held in public and decisions reported publicly. Somewhat at odds with this, however, can be the right to respect for family life. Special considerations must apply to family proceedings due to their sensitive nature; hence the Family Procedure Rules 2010 include provisions dealing with media access to the family courts. This article assumes that the family division judge is not sitting in open court. In such circumstances one would need to apply for the case to be heard in private.

Where proceedings are being heard in private, rr 27.10 and 27.11 of the Family Procedure Rules state that accredited media representatives have the right to attend family proceedings but that right is subject to the court’s discretion. Furthermore, even if the court chooses to allow accredited media representatives to attend there are still various limitations

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll