Senior judge orders greater transparency in family court judgments

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/16/judge-transparency-family-court-judgments

Version 0 of 1.

Many more judgments from some of the UK's most secret hearings will be published in future, the judge in charge of the family court and the court of protection has ordered.

Sir James Munby, who has been pushing for greater transparency in the way courts operate, has instructed judges that in many cases the starting point should be to give permission for publication, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so.

The switch in policy will ensure that more details will emerge of some of the sensitive domestic disputes, albeit often anonymised. The new regulations will come into effect from 3 February.

Munby, who is president of the family division of the high court and of the court of protection, said the guidance was intended to bring about "an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments".

He said: "In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name. The guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for publication."

Public debates over cases such as that of a pregnant Italian woman who was ordered to have a caesarean section because of fears that a natural birth could be life-threatening have often not been properly informed because judgments have been withheld. Munby has acknowledged that inaccurate reporting is not entirely the fault of the media if it is denied access to court judgments on the case.

In his guidance (pdf), he declares: "Permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest and whether or not a request has been made by a party or the media."

He adds that while children and their families and those who are the subjects of court of protection cases – individuals who are unable for whatever reason to make their own decisions about issues such as medical treatment or living arrangements – will normally continue to be anonymous in judgments, the names of expert witnesses, local authorities and other public bodies should be included unless there are compelling reasons against doing so.

The guidance establishes two categories of judgments: those which must normally be published and those which may be published. The terms on which publication is permitted will be for individual judges to decide.

"Where a judgment is likely to be used in a way that would defeat the purpose of any anonymisation, it is open to the judge to refuse to publish the judgment or to make an order restricting its use," the guidance adds.

In some cases, it is suggested, anonymity for the parties might not be appropriate – for example, if parents who have been exonerated in care proceedings wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgment, or when findings have been made against a person and someone else contends or the judge concludes that it is in the public interest for that person to be identified in any published version of the judgment.

The rules governing coverage of family courts and the court of protection place strict restrictions on the media's ability to report cases. In the family division of the high court, journalists have a presumptive right to attend hearings but have to obtain the court's agreement on whether a case may be reported and, if so, what details may be covered. In the court of protection the general rule is that hearings are held in private, with the media and public excluded.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.