Opening up the family courts – Lucy Series

14 September 2011 by

Last month the Ministry of Justice published a report of a pilot project that ran last year whereby participating family courts produced and published on Bailii written judgments of specified Children Act 1989 cases.  The project had three main aims:

  • to increase transparency and improve public understanding of the family justice system by publishing anonymised judgments in all serious children cases;
  • to help parties by providing written judgments in all cases, even where a matter was not contested;
  • to provide  judgments which the children involved could access in later life.

The family courts are often perceived as ‘secretive’ or aloof; Munby LJ has made excellent arguments for greater transparency far more eloquently than I could hope to do in this speech (pdf)

Conclusions of the FCIP report

It was felt by many that children would benefit from having a written judgment to refer back to in later life, to understand the reasons for decisions that were made about them by the courts.  Similar arguments may pertain in the Court of Protection, to enable P and P’s family to understand the reasoning behind decisions affecting them.  A clearly reasoned written judgment may offer a much better tool for longer-term understanding than a verbal delivery, particularly when the subjects at the heart of these cases are rarely present in court themselves.

The judiciary and court staff found the task of writing judgments and then anonymising them burdensome.  They felt this was manageable at present, but might become less so if the project was rolled out nationally and resource pressures continue to grow.  The judiciary, court staff and family law practitioners also expressed concerns about privacy issues.  However, no parties objected to their judgment being published on Bailii, although some respondents felt they did not understand what the website was or the implications of publication.

A major shortcoming of the FCIP is that no families responded to the invitation to give their views on how they felt about their cases being posted on Bailii.  It is difficult to assess, therefore, the accuracy of perceptions that they did not understand the implications of publication, or that they would feel concerned about their privacy.  The FCIP did, however, hear from some respondents to a survey by Bailii who were involved in family court proceedings themselves:

members of the public responding to the survey] were disappointed with the level of detail and lack of identifiable information. The members of the public, some of whom were involved in cases, were variable in their replies, one describing the pilot as “a hoax” designed to mislead the public, while others said how good it was to see how much care was taken in reaching decisions and that the reasons given were “cogent and helpful in understanding the outcome. (p20)

What limited evidence the FCIP does present of family’s views seems to suggest some may be reassured by reading the judgments.  Furthermore, with growing numbers of litigants in person in the family courts and the Court of Protection the need to provide free and clearly reasoned case law to help assuage inequality of arms will only increase.

In contrast with family law practitioners, local authority lawyers thought it might be extremely helpful to have free, written judgments to refer back to.  “Social welfare” professionals using the judgments on Bailii’s site found them useful, and there was discussion of how the written judgments could be a useful training tool for both health and social care professionals, and the judiciary themselves (albeit with some debate about who should resource this).

The judgments were accessed 56,887 times on Bailii.  The estimated cost of the pilot was £10,000  – so that’s 17.6p per download, a bargain!  Concerns were expressed about the navigability of Bailii, especially if the volume of the judgments posted on the site were to be increased., but this is hardly an insurmountable obstacle to transparency.  The excellent Mental Health Law Online website indexes their case law pages by subject-matter.  Bailii have a much bigger task since they cover far more jurisdictions, but how hard would it be for the courts to ‘tag’ their written judgments with more information about content and the type of case, just as bloggers do…

The Bailii survey found that the judgments were also useful to legal academics and analysts, and the media.  The published judgments had not produced a ‘feeding frenzy’ for the media, tracking down parties involved in published cases.  It strikes me that if anything it is a good thing for the press to be able to have access to the court’s raw judgment, rather than relying on the account of a select few parties to the case.

The FCIP suggests many reasons for considering a national roll-out: providing parties with accessible information about decisions in their cases; improving practice through training and awareness; countering perceptions of secrecy.  Interestingly, the report makes no engagement at all with the Article 6 requirement that judgment must be “pronounced publicly”, which can be achieved either through a reading in open court or depositing a written judgment in a public registry (Pretto v Italy, 1983).

Concerns meriting further research around privacy remain, but resources are likely to be the most serious obstacle.  It would be a shame, I think, if this project were left at the bottom of a drawer in the Ministry of Justice marked “too expensive”.

Lucy Series is researching mental capacity and human rights in community care settings for her doctoral thesis in law.  She writes a blog at The Small Places.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. StuG says:

    Picking apart the above:
    “to increase transparency and improve public understanding of the family justice system by publishing anonymised judgments in all serious children cases”
    So, only the serious cases, or rather, some ‘specified’ ones. Probably where even the shallow intellects of the ornamental family judiciary got it right. So, it is not transparent at all. What about the everyday ones where children are removed on a social worker’s whim, or shared residence orders refused for no reason, and meaningful contact to fathers refused for no reason.
    Or, one which happened just last week. A father took his children to the PRFD in London after his two children, 7&9, reported various assaults by their mother and corroborated the allegations to the Police. The judge refused to speak to the children and refused to allow the Police, who had already interviewed the kids and turned up to the courts to assist further, to question them again in the court building or give evidence to the court. Without any testing of the allegations the children were sent back to their mother.
    Ian above is correct too; the judgements need to be bracketed according to type and easy to find.
    If the selection were entirely random in type case, location and from any time since 1989, the pilot would have merit. What is really needed is for the judgements to be closely examined by forensic discourse analysis alongside independent legal expertise. To track things more accurately, find one of those cases where a father has been to court 30-odd times, is not considered a risk to his children, and closely examine the judicial dialogue to see how they flout the principals of the Children Act in secret courts, and make it all up as they go along at each hearing.

  2. Stephen says:

    The third of the purposes listed above, “to provide judgments which the children involved could access in later life”, is a most excellent one.

    Individuals who have been separated from their biological families before their consciousness has developed are often enormously helped by gaining understanding of the separation in later life. I know this from direct experience.

    It would seem that this purpose is entirely consistent with the judgement in Gaskin v UK (ECtHR 1989) which held that individuals in Gaskin’s position (he was raised in public care) have a right to understand their formative years, their origins – these being components of an individual’s identity. The issue of access to public records containing such information engaged Article 8 ECHR, the Court held.

    A record written contemporaneously with events may be invaluable to individuals who in later life research their backgrounds. Verbal accounts can often be spun by the affected parties and may impede the seeker’s discovery of truth. Bitterness and hurt may cloud accounts.

    Once more Lord Justice Munby is mentioned in relation to an enlightened approach to children and families. More power to him and his very thorough analyses and enlightened conclusions.

  3. ian josephs says:

    As for the Ministry of justice report…….. They do not live in the real world.
    Can anyone seriously see”Joe public” locating these judgements let alone sifting through 20 pages or more of legal jargon that few of them could even begn to understand,?Parents should be free to tell their stories to the media ,naming names if they so wish and social services should then be able to give their side of the story instead of mouthing platitudes about devoted and overworked public servants ,or worse still rushing off to court to get an injuction to stop the matter being discussed at all !

  4. ian josephs says:

    It’s pretty simple really ! If mothers have their babies taken at birth they should not be threatened with jail if they protest on line ,or to the media . No other democracy in the world gags parents in this way,and it is astonishing that the right of all citizens to protest openly if they believe they have been oppressed by the State should be curtailed in the UK and nowhere else in the free world !
    Not content with this parents are gagged by the “SS” a second time when they see their children at “contact” and are forbidden to say they are fighting in court to get the children back or to explain the situation in any way.Free speech is thrown out of the window by this ruthless censoring of conversation by the “SS” who will stop contact if parents do not obey their censorship rules.The bewildered children then believe their parents are not making any effort to rescue them and have abandoned them.
    Abolish this “double gagging” in the name of democracy and freedom of speech .The UK SHOULD DISCARD SUCH TRAPPINGS OF THE POLICE STATE;

  5. M.A.F.G. says:

    the sad death of two family lawyers are narrated but I question the use of a certain wording by ‘Munby LJ’ – he describes them both as “distinguished ornaments” which in many peoples minds would be overlooked and held as a pleasantry but in my own perception Mr Munby is asking for younger and more energetic lawyers for this role. I may be completely off the mark but it seems Mr Munby whilst doling out pleasantries also calls for change – who the hell wants to be called an ornament- or were these lawyers merely impotent pawns of the system – ‘in the end’? Should they have been replaced long before?
    I seem within the first few paragraphs of this speech to find an under current that implies ,in my own perception, a subliminal message.
    If anyone has anything to say on this matter I’d like you to please consider that I have no standing anywhere near as important as these people and wish to defame no one- merely to discuss possible feelings of Mr Munby that may be spilling into his speeches.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Family life fatal accidents act Fertility FGM Finance fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Germany Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection hammerton v uk happy new year Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII hereditary disorder Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence limestone pavements lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Sumption Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: