Written evidence from the Society of Editors
(FC 47)
THE OPERATION OF THE FAMILY COURTS
We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute
to this inquiry. At this stage I wish only to comment briefly
and to add our support to the more detailed analysis provided
by Susan Oake for the Newspaper Society with whom we have worked
closely.
In essence we welcomed the then Secretary of State
for Justice Jack Straw's intention to open up the family courts
to greater scrutiny by lifting some of the restrictions on media
reporting.
This was an opportunity to provide the public with
a proper insight into how the courts operated and the complex
and often harrowing issues that they have to consider. It would
also provide opportunities to ensure that the system could be
more easily challenged by those who might feel aggrieved by their
treatment in the courts.
The first principle of justice is that it should
be fair. The second is that it should be open and that in turn
helps to support the first. Improved understanding that flows
from greater openness benefits both individuals and the public
generally.
In arguing the case for greater openness we fully
appreciated the need to protect children and vulnerable families.
The media in the UK has a long track record in accepting the need
for restrictions and has a first class reputation in reporting
other courts.
Sadly as plans for reform progressed we found that
there were powerful voices that appeared not to understand the
importance of openness in creating confidence in the justice system
and clearly had no understanding of the role of the media in informing
the public.
That slowed the progress of sensible reform and eventually
produced unrealistic legislation that would, if implemented, make
reporting more difficult and sadly add nothing to public understanding
of the important work of the courts.
Instead of an approach that in broad terms provided
for a system whereby the public can be told everything about the
work of the courts unless there are clearly important reasons
for restricting information, such as the protection of children,
for example, there is potential for increasing the mystery surrounding
the courts.
The proposals simply created greater complexity in
the rules and provided for protection from publicity where it
was not necessary and in some cases plainly unhelpful.
What is more, if implemented, the two stage approach
to reform would inevitably set back change further because the
difficulties for reporting would create an impression of disinterest
on the part of the media. That would serve the interests only
of those who seem determined to maintain secrecy in the process.
In short an opportunity has been missed to bring
the system into the modern world where the benefits of transparency
are properly appreciated. This serves the real interests of no-one.
As the Newspaper Society's submission states, "It
is wrong to suggest that the interests of the families are best
met by a system of secret justice." Neither is it in the
wider public interest nor more specifically in the interest of
the justice system and all those who work with and in it.
We look forward to your review and we would gladly
add to these comments either in writing or orally.
September 2010
| 
