|
| |
|
By Frances Gibb
Proposals
aim to build confidence
by exposing
hearings to the same scrutiny as all other cases
|
|
|
|
|
THE
secrecy of family courts, which has led to long-running campaigns of
hostility, could be ended under a proposal to be made next month
that would throw them open.
Thousands of hearings, from divorce wrangles over money to contact
with children, would no longer be conducted behind closed doors.
But
there would be a new regime to protect the anonymity of those
involved, with judges having power to order out “nosey neighbours”
and a new criminal offence to protect individual privacy.
A
consultation paper will urge a change of culture to end the secrecy
of the family courts, which have faced the hostility of such groups
as Fathers4Justice. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is
expected to recommend one set of rules for all courts, instead of
most family cases being closed, which presumes cases are in public.
High-profile divorces, such as the Miller case on which the House of
Lords will give judgment today, would be subject to an anonymity
order unless all parties waived their right to privacy — denying the
press the chance of reporting salacious details.
The
move — spearheaded by Harriet Harman, QC, Minister for
Constitutional Affairs — is likely to be controversial with some
family judges concerned about litigants’ privacy.
But
she told The Times: “We need a very big change in culture
from secrecy to openness, to bolster public confidence. No change is
not an option. There is a serious lack of confidence in the family
courts which must be addressed.” The family courts were “for ever on
the back foot”, she added, defending themselves against accusations
of bias. The secrecy of the courts allowed serious allegations to be
made. “It is not possible for the courts to rebut these allegations.
The courts have got nothing to hide.”
However, if the courts were to be open to press and public, there
had to be an effective regime of anonymity, properly enforced, Ms
Harman said.
“At
present anonymity is breached on a regular basis, partly because the
current level of secrecy and lack of accountability make it
difficult for courts to argue the system must be defended.” If there
was more openness and accountability, anonymity could be more
strictly enforced, she said.
Proposals to open the family courts have support among the most
senior judges, including the top family judge in Britain, Sir Mark
Potter, President of the Family Division.
But
many other judges will need to be persuaded that the benefits will
not lead to damaging publicity about people’s private lives.
Ms
Harman, who told the family judges on Monday that the status quo was
not an option, added: “At present we have the worst of all worlds:
secrecy, lack of accountability to Parliament (with MPs and
ministers unable to go into proceedings), a climate of suspicion and
breaches of anonymity.”
At
present different courts operate different rules. The consultation
paper is likely to propose one set of rules for all courts along the
lines of the Court of Appeal, with press and public access subject
to anonymity orders.
|
|
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
COMMENT: THE ACID TEST
You
will know if this is a genuine attempt at transparency ....or whether it is a
cosmetic.
Here are the 3
determinants that MUST be allowed for Disclosure to the press and media, if
the DCA is genuinely intent on ' transparency and fairness'.
1....The names of
the social workers, paediatricians and others who instigated the cases, who
provided the evidence to bring the case to court must be disclosed.
2......Those parents
and children who had the cases against them effectively dismissed and were
awarded costs against the local authority, must be allowed to disclose ALL the
details. ....EVERY detail bar none.
3......In those
cases in which the judgement went against the parents, where the allegations
made by social workers and paediatricians were of a medical nature, where the
child/children are over the age of 12 and are 'Gillick Competent' .........And
the parents and children wish to make all the details known to the
press........This MUST be allowed.
This is the acid
test......If all the 3 listed above are not included in the new Disclosure
Rules....Then you know what is going on......The authorities are seeking to
protect social workers and paediatricians and doctors. That is the real
purpose of the current 'secrecy'.
|
