Family court pilot marks change in case transparency

A newly launched pilot programme aims to enhance public confidence in family court through increased transparency.

Under the pilot, reporters may attend and report on court hearings relating to arrangements for children, so long as they maintain the anonymity of the parties and children. 

The pilot heralds a major change in approach. Hearings in family law matters have traditionally been heard in private, with only the parties and their representatives permitted to attend.

Since 2009 reporters have been able to attend hearings, but they have not been allowed to report on what they see and hear without specific permission from the judge. 

In October 2021 the president of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, released a ground-breaking report, “Confidence and Confidentiality”, in which he acknowledged that “justice taking place in private… is bound to lead to a loss of public confidence”.

At the same time, he recognised that greater openness must not come at the expense of the interests of children, and the need to protect their anonymity. 

Some have raised concerns that the press may be more interested in sensationalising family disputes than in thoughtful analysis of the system.

The pilot aims to strike the balance between these concerns. It will operate for one year in Cardiff, Carlisle and Leeds, and covers both public law and private law children matters, that is, those involving the state, such as care proceedings, as well as disputes between parents about issues such as where a child should live and contact arrangements. 

In the pilot courts, there will be a presumption that accredited journalists and legal bloggers (“duly authorised lawyers attending for journalistic, research or public legal educational purposes”) will be permitted to report on what they see and hear in court, and should be provided with certain documents, such as the parties’ case summaries.

However, there is a list of details about the case that cannot generally be reported, including the details of any alleged sexual abuse, and it will remain a criminal offence to publish information intended or likely to identify the children. Further, a judge can always order that there should be no reporting in a particular case. 

There has already been one published judgment involving the pilot; BR & Others (Transparency Order: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2023] EWFC 9, a case involving three families where the mothers were alleged to have fabricated or induced illness in a child.