Reporting Family
Proceedings
JULY 2009
Introduction
Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, has made the long-awaited announcement that
family courts at all levels will be opened up to media access. The new rules
governing the attendance of media representatives at family proceedings came
into force on 27 April 2009. The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules
2009 cover the High Courts and County Courts, while The Family Proceedings
Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2009 deal with the Magistrates’ Courts, together with an accompanying Practice Direction for each set of rules.
Legislation
In the Magistrates’ Courts, the rules in relation to media attendance apply to “relevant proceedings”, as defined by s.93(3) of the Children Act 1989. The 1989
Act states that “relevant proceedings” means any application made, or proceedings
brought, under any of the provisions made to give effect to the 1989 Act or any
amendment made by the 1989 Act. The High Court and County Court rules apply “when proceedings are held in private”.
The media representatives now entitled to attend must be “duly accredited
representatives of news gathering and reporting organisations”, which means those
holding a press card issued under the UK Press Card Scheme.
Exclusion of the Media
The new rules provide a list of grounds which allow the court to direct that the
media be excluded from the proceedings where it is satisfied that it is necessary:-
- in the interests of any child concerned in or connected with the proceedings;
- for the safety or protection of a party, a witness in the proceedings, or a
person connected with such a party or witness;
- for the orderly conduct of the proceedings; or
- it is satisfied that justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced.
Where the court is considering excluding journalists, it should permit “any media
representatives who are present” to make representations. There is no requirement
upon the court or any party to notify the media of an intention to exclude
journalists, and therefore it may transpire that where exclusion orders are made
this takes place without hearing representations from any media representatives at
all.
The Practice Directions state that when considering whether to exclude the media
on any of the grounds listed above, the court should:-
- identify whether the risk arises from the mere fact of media presence or
whether excluding the media from part of the hearing would adequately
address the risk;
- consider whether reporting or disclosure restrictions which automatically apply
or the court could order will provide sufficient protection;
- consider the safety of the parties where there are particular physical or healthrisks against which reporting restrictions may be inadequate to afford
protection;
- when dealing with a vulnerable adult or child who is unrepresented, consider
the extent to which the court should take steps of its own motion in order to
protect the individual.
Reasons of administrative inconvenience are not sufficient to justify the ground
that “justice will be impeded or prejudiced”. However, exclusion might be
necessary where a financial hearing includes price sensitive information or where
a witness states for credible reasons that he will not give evidence in front of the
media.
No change
The position under the previous rules remains unchanged in several important
respects. Nothing in the new rules on media attendance permits the communication
to the public at large of any information relating to the proceedings. Thus the ‘private’ nature of family proceedings remains and section 12 of the Administration
of Justice Act 1960 still applies to reporting of proceedings, making it a contempt
of court to report almost any information from the proceedings if they concern
minors. Nor will they be able to identify the parties to the proceedings in light of
the restrictions contained in section 97 of the Children Act 1989. In addition media
representatives will still not be entitled to receive or peruse court documents
referred to in the course of evidence, submissions or judgment without the
permission of the court.
Conclusion
Despite the hopes of journalists and observers, the rule changes allowing reporters
into family courts have not been accompanied by any changes to reporting
restrictions themselves, therefore meaning that most cases, particularly those
involving children, remain unreportable. Ministry of Justice officials insist that
private hearings will remain private, even if journalists are allowed to attend, and
that the section 12 ban on reporting those cases involving children remains fully in
place.
There has been much criticism over the new regime, in particular from the
Newspaper Society and Society of Editors, supported by ITN and the Press
Association. If section 12 does still apply, then clearly there is an urgent need to
make appropriate legislation to enable reporting of such proceedings to take place.
Reporting will be limited to the process and the “gist” of the proceedings, rather
than the detail of any particular case; in other words, the reporting will be about
the system rather than the substance. The Government has announced that it
intends to legislate to revise the law in this area so as to ease or lift some of the
restrictions which remain in place, “as soon as parliamentary time allows”.
On 9th July, Jack Straw announced that the reporting restrictions in family proceedings are to be relaxed, which could now mean that the media will be able to publish the details of family cases. However safeguards will continue to protect the identities of the individuals involved. Straw said that "allowing the substance of cases to be reported in more details will lead to greater transparency".
If you would like any further information about the issues raised in this newsletter, or any other aspect of media law, please contact any member of Goodman Derrick LLP's .
This guide is for general
information and interest
only and should not be
relied upon as providing
specific legal advice.
|
download