Increased openness is a change for the better. But cuts have made the courts’ work far harder
O
pening up family courts in England and Wales to journalists was never intended to solve all their problems. This is a public service that, like so many others, is chronically overloaded and underfunded. While the number of children in council care fell slightly last year, the figure of 81,770 in England was still 16% higher than a decade ago. Recent increases in legal aid fees applied only to immigration, housing and criminal cases – leaving family lawyers out.
But new rules about what can be reported are an important legacy of the court’s president, Sir Andrew McFarlane, who retired on Monday. These apply both to public law cases, involving care proceedings, and private law cases, which are usually disputes between couples. Following the national rollout of transparency orders, which enable reporters and legal bloggers to write about cases as long as they protect anonymity, his successor – who is yet to be announced – will inherit a more open family justice system.
Cuts by news organisations mean that there is less court reporting overall than there used to be. Most family hearings continue as before, with no one present apart from the parties, witnesses, lawyers and court staff. But it matters that these cases are no longer off-limits to journalists because of the signal this sends that the public has a right to know about them. The push for transparency can also be linked to reforms including new rules on the use of expert witnesses. Awareness of the system’s flaws has helped to ensure that they are addressed – although there are concerns about the emphasis placed on overcoming delays. As Lisa Harker of Nuffield Family Justice Observatory points out, good decisions are better than speedy ones.
