Transparency in the Family Courts and the Court of Protection – Inforrm

17 January 2014 by

MUNBY_2629027bThe President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has today issued important new guidance on “Transparency in the Family Courts: Publication of Judgments” [pdf] and “Transparency in the Court of Protection: Publication of Judgments” [pdf].

These two documents are intended “to bring about an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection”.

Both documents say that:

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 (even if they will often need to be published in appropriately anonymised form [2].

The President notes that very similar issues arise in both Courts “in relation to the need to protect the personal privacy of children and vulnerable adults” and adopt an incremental approach.

The Guidance provides that permission to public should always be given “whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest” whether or not a request has been made [16]

The Guidance set out certain categories of case in the Family Courts (Guidance [17]) and the Court of Protection (Guidance [17]) in which there is a presumption of publication.  In such cases where

a written judgment already exists in a publishable form or the judge has already ordered that the judgment be transcribed, the starting point is that permission should be given for the judgment to be published unless there are compelling reasons why the judgment should not be published.

In all other cases, the starting point is that permission may be given for publication of a judgment whenever a party or an accredited member of the media applies for an order permitting publication.

The Guidance goes on to provide ([20] in both documents) that:

In all cases where a judge gives permission for a judgment to be published:

(i)   public authorities and expert witnesses should be named in the judgment approved for publication, unless there are compelling reasons why they should not be so named;

(ii)   the children who are the subject of the proceedings in the family courts, and other members of their family, and the person who is the subject of proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court relating to incapacitated or vulnerable adults, and other members of their family, should not normally be named in the judgment approved for publication unless the judge otherwise orders;

(iii)  anonymity in the judgment as published should not normally extend beyond protecting the privacy of the children and adults who are the subject of the proceedings and other members of their families, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

The judgment should be anonymised as the judge orders.  Unless the judge orders otherwise all judgments will be deemed to included the following words:

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the incapacitated person and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.[21]

Finally, the Guidance provides that as soon as a judgment to which [16] or [17] applies is approvied for publication it should, as soon as reasonably practicable, be placed on the BAILII website [23].

This post first appeared on Inforrm’s Blog and is reproduced here with permission and thanks

 Related posts:

2 comments


  1. Finola Moss says:

    Possible get outs–

    ‘where a judgment is likely to be used in a way that would defeat the purpose of any anonymisation’- no examples.

    ‘compelling reasons’ —what will be ‘compelling’, and why -no examples.

    The proposals merely rebut the presumption of non publication . A judge has always had a right to publish an anonyimised version of his judgement for compelling reasons in the public interest.

    How does this affect the parents rights to seek help once proceedings issued or after order made. Do they still run the very real risk of imprisonment for contempt?

  2. Andrew says:

    The devil is in the detail. The PD for the family courts seems to envisage cases where the parties will be obliged to share the cost of transcription – why? Why should they pay to have their business – even partly or wholly anonymised – made public? Nothing of the sort happens in any other jurisdiction – why here?

    As for lay justices’ judgments being transcribed and published – I know of no magistrates’ courts where they are even taped. Who is going to pay to set that up?

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


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 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 law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment 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 Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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: