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 to bear in mind. These include exclusion from accessing private

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

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