2025-04-10
The Family Courts in their current incarnation are a relatively recent innovation.
I don't recall that there was any great clamour for them, but one particular aspect of their operation is cause for concern:
"Courts in England and Wales have a principle of open justice where hearings are held in public but family courts are held in private because it has been felt that this protects children"
Thereby at a stroke defeating the age-old principle that "justice must be seen to be done".
So ... denying a fundamental principle of justice can be allowed if "it has been felt that this protects children"?
It seems to me that this is fundamentally unsound - neither children nor any other parties to a case can be adequately protected in the absence of "open justice".
Therefore I note a move (the Transparency Project) to at least partially rectify this situation by opening the family courts to journalists and 'legal bloggers' who are regarded as suitably qualified to report on such cases provided that they protect the anonymity of those involved:
"Family courts in the UK are undergoing a substantial change, one that will significantly affect anyone involved in family proceedings. From 27 January 2025, the Family Court transparency pilot, initially introduced on a smaller scale, will be rolled out nationwide"
The Family Court proceedings will still not be open to the public but will be open to certain journalists.
"The transparency pilot, first trialled in selected regions in 2023, seeks to strike a delicate balance between openness and privacy, allowing accredited journalists and legal bloggers greater access to family hearings"
What does "greater access" mean in practice?
Are the Courts wanting in effect to have their cake and eat it?
"The presence of journalists could alter courtroom dynamics significantly. Solicitors and barristers will increasingly need to consider the public perception of their arguments, strategies, and courtroom behaviour"
Which is the whole point!
I have not managed to unearth a full reasoning behind the changes now implemented (is the Transparency Project being fully transparent here?!), but this link provides onward links to many specific articles on related aspects.
What does the public think?
Personally, if I were in Court I would want tend toward wanting full openness, because that will afford maximum protection of my interests. Those who have something to hide might see things differently but is it the job of the courts to protect such people?
So maybe we need to consider an example of what may go on in a "Family Court".
Martin Geddes has documented a case from the US that some may think illustrates the potential for miscarriages of justice. Caveat: the US is not the UK!
