‘Journalists will be able to report what happens in family courts from the end of January, under a pilot scheme taking place in Leeds, Cardiff and Carlisle.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th December 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Alex Ruck Keene QC (Hon) analyses recent comments made by Mostyn J and transparency orders before the Court of Protection.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th August 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A former surgeon facing dozens of negligence claims has failed to stop reporting restrictions being applied to a legal case.’
BBC News, 4th August 2022
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Almost 100 years after a ban on cameras in criminal courts was enshrined in law, the first broadcast from an English crown court went out on Thursday and is likely to have left many viewers asking: “Why has it taken so long?”’
The Guardian, 28th July 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Old Bailey will be opened up to cameras on Thursday as sentencing remarks from a crown court case in England and Wales are broadcast for the first time.’
The Guardian, 27th July 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A new Reporters’ Charter outlining the rights and responsibilities of court reporters has been launched to boost transparency in the justice system.’
Ministry of Justice, 11th May 2022
Source: www.gov.uk
‘Lauren Gardner analyses a Court of Protection ruling on whether proceedings in relation to a 21-year-old woman should be open to the public and whether the judgment should be published.’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th March 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘This was the issue in the landmark human rights case, Re S [2004] UKHL 47, in which Lord Steyn formulated the test in balancing privacy interests under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with freedom of expression interests under Article 10. Lord Steyn’s formula is relied on (or should be) every time the media argue that it’s in the public interest to breach someone’s Article 8 rights. Likewise, every time an individual argues their privacy rights outweigh freedom of expression, we go to Re S.’
Transparency Project, 8th March 2022
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘In this post, Jessica Eaton, an associate in the litigation team at CMS, comments on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, case which cojeet_lthumbncerned the right to privacy in the context of a criminal investigation.’
UKSC Blog, 25th February 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The central question for the Supreme Court in Bloombery v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 was, as Lords Hamblen and Stephens put it (with Lord Reeds, Lloyd-Jones and Sales agreeing): “whether, in general, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation”. The short answer was “yes”.’
Panopticon, 21st February 2022
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Lauren Gardner reports on some significant recent judgments in the Court of Protection.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th January 2022
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A legal challenge over a decision to ban media organisations from a court case about the Duke of Edinburgh’s will is to be heard by the court of appeal.’
The Guardian, 24th January 2022
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Greater transparency is necessary for the public to have confidence in the family justice system but balancing openness with confidentiality will be “really difficult”, the president of the Family Division told MPs today.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th January 2022
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Judicial decision-making: case studies from Biblical times and now – The Rt Hon Lady Rose of Colmworth DBE”
Supreme Court, 1st December 2021
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘On 29 October 2021 the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, published a report with his conclusions on the issue of transparency in the family courts. His view is clear: it is possible to enhance public confidence in the family courts whilst also safeguarding the privacy of the families and the children who turn to the courts for protection and resolution. Increased transparency in the family courts is plainly a top priority for the President; it should be the “new norm”.’
Family Law, 26th November 2021
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Hard on the heels of the CONSULTATION ON A PROPOSAL FOR A STANDARD REPORTING PERMISSION ORDER IN FINANCIAL REMEDY PROCEEDINGS published by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess, the FRC Lead Judges, and animated by the same acknowledgement of the need for more transparency in FRC, come two important judgments by Mostyn J on the same subject: BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87, paras 100-114, and, in quick succession, A v M [2021] EWFC 89, paras 101-106.’
Transparency Project, 16th November 2021
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The issue of how the protection of privacy rights should be balanced as against the fundamental public interest in achieving transparency and open justice within the family justice system has long vexed the family division of the High Court. On the one hand, ensuring the confidentiality of family law proceedings is crucial both in terms of protecting the fundamental privacy rights of those individuals who find themselves caught up in such proceedings and in terms of maximising their engagement in the process. On the other hand, a lack of meaningful transparency around the work of the family courts undermines public trust in the family justice system, increases the risk of miscarriages of justice and inhibits the public’s ability to press for reforms of the system on a properly informed basis. The family courts have for a number of years recognised that this balance was weighted too strongly in favour of preserving the confidentiality of family court proceedings, but that still left the fantastically difficult question of how the system should be reformed so as to increase the level of transparency. These are issues that were considered most recently by the courts in the case of Newman v Southampton City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 437. In that case, a journalist who had been unable to attend the first instance hearings of a particular high profile adoption case, was seeking access to the documents which had been placed before the first instance court. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had been right to conclude that the balance of interests tipped in favour of preserving the confidentiality of the majority of relevant documents. However, it also observed that the case served to ‘underline the need for the Transparency Review’ (paragraph 92).’
Panopticon, 2nd November 2021
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘Openness in the family justice system should be regarded as “the new norm”, the president of the Family Division said yesterday, proposing that the media should be allowed to report court hearings more fully.’
Law Society's Gazette, 29th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Occasionally, a claimant at the employment tribunal will contact the Gazette in distress, after seeing reports of their case apparently plastered all over the internet. Many seem unaware of – and certainly unprepared for – the implications of open justice in the digital age.’
Law Society's Gazette, 25th October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The focus of this judgment was on the jurisdiction, if any, that the High Court Family Division has to maintain a Reporting Restriction Order (‘RRO’) prohibiting the naming of any medical clinicians as being involved in the care and treatment of a child who had been the subject of “end of life” proceedings before the High Court prior to their death, and where an RRO had been made at that time preventing the identification of any of the treating clinicians and staff until further order.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th July 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024