However, as reporters are not a party to proceedings, they are not at present entitled to see any of the documents prepared for court and are also at risk of being in contempt of court if they publish private information. Therefore, whilst the press can attend court, there are rules on what information can be reported.
The aim of this change in law was to increase transparency. There had been a lot of concern, particularly in cases involving children being taken into care, that there should be greater transparency surrounding those decisions, and a wider understanding of why those decisions were taken.
There have been various headlines during the course of the last month telling us that this is an end to the “secretive” family courts, and that the reforms will enable the public to ascertain whether family law professionals are making “fair” decisions.
There was an article in the Sunday Times on 10 May 2009 with the headline of “mum jailed for telling son she loves him”. The essence of this case seems to be that the court have prevented this lady, for one reason or another, from seeing her children for three years. It also appears that she has been arrested for breach of a non-molestation order.
This was clearly a devastating case for all involved, and undoubtedly a decision of last resort for the courts, taken after years of litigation and on the recommendation of various medical professionals.
However, because the press are unable to see the documents in court, or report full details, the background and detail to put decisions such as this into context simply cannot be reported. As a result, only limited details of cases are reported, and by journalists who can only have a very limited knowledge of the case. Necessarily therefore the public will continue to have very limited access to decision making in the family courts, and sensationalist headlines will continue.
So, what is the answer?
Many journalists would say that the answer is to allow them access to the documentation, and the ability to report full details of the case. This would ensure that the public had full details of the decisions that the courts had taken, and could perhaps put those decisions in context.
On the other hand, separating spouses and parents in disagreement over contact and residence may be very averse to details of their lives (and their children’s lives) being reported by the press for their neighbours, friends, colleagues and wider public to read.
Only time will tell how this area will develop, and we will keep you updated.
Hannah Wilson