Secrecy
of the family courts may be about to end
By Frances Gibb
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2194739,00.html
The
Times - Wednesday 24th May 2006
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.
