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The sweeping change is proposed by Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, who has issued draft guidance that would allow thousands more written judgments to be published.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Sir James said the draft guidance will be followed by further Guidance and then more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family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Comments on the draft guidance should be sent to Sir James’ private secretary Alex Clark at Alex.Clark@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk by early October 2013.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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll