The Times has reported that accredited media will be able to attend all levels of family courts from April 27, but says the scheme is not open to bloggers, those who write occasional news-letters or to foreign media.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg raised some very interesting points in the Daily Telegrapgh last December about the privileged access journalists would be given under plans to open up the family courts to "accredited" media.
He wrote: "It is fundamental to the Government’s proposals that the media should be given privileged access to the courts. As a journalist, I naturally welcome this. And it must be right to draw a distinction between the press and the public at large. Opening the family courts to everyone would put children and families at risk of being identified and stigmatised. It would not be possible to stop identifying information from being made public.
"But Mr Straw does not seem to have given enough thought to what constitutes the modern media. If I decide to write about legal affairs on my own website, am I a freelance journalist who should be allowed access to the courts or a blogger who should not? And who is to decide?"
Story tip via Adrian Monck's blog
Showing posts with label Family Courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family Courts. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Newspaper Society gives 'qualified welcome' to opening of family courts to media scrutiny
The Newspaper Society has given a “qualified welcome” to Justice Secretary Jack Straw's announcement that family courts will be opened to the media in April.
Sue Oake, NS senior legal advisor, said: “We are delighted that Jack Straw has reinstated the government’s original proposal to allow the media access to all tiers of family courts, recognising the vital role of the media in safeguarding transparency and upholding the open justice principle, as the NS has consistently argued for.
“We will want to scrutinise carefully the proposals for reporting restrictions – clearly these will need to be proportionate and targeted: to impose a blanket “default” requirement of anonymity for all parties will result in a restrictions more draconian, in many cases, than those pertaining already. We are particularly concerned by the proposal to reverse Clayton V Clayton. “
“On disclosure of information, we are disappointed that the statement does not make any move towards allowing direct or indirect disclosure to the media by parties to the proceedings. Again, with appropriate safeguards, this could have been an effective means to aid openness so we are pleased to note Mr Straw’s assurance during the Parliamentary debate that he is still “actively considering” this issue.”
Sue Oake, NS senior legal advisor, said: “We are delighted that Jack Straw has reinstated the government’s original proposal to allow the media access to all tiers of family courts, recognising the vital role of the media in safeguarding transparency and upholding the open justice principle, as the NS has consistently argued for.
“We will want to scrutinise carefully the proposals for reporting restrictions – clearly these will need to be proportionate and targeted: to impose a blanket “default” requirement of anonymity for all parties will result in a restrictions more draconian, in many cases, than those pertaining already. We are particularly concerned by the proposal to reverse Clayton V Clayton. “
“On disclosure of information, we are disappointed that the statement does not make any move towards allowing direct or indirect disclosure to the media by parties to the proceedings. Again, with appropriate safeguards, this could have been an effective means to aid openness so we are pleased to note Mr Straw’s assurance during the Parliamentary debate that he is still “actively considering” this issue.”
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
"Does Jack Straw know what constitutes the modern media?" asks Joshua Rozenberg
The Daily Telegraph's legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg raises some very interesting points about the privileged access journalists would be given under plans to open up the family courts to "accredited" media. (see posting below)
He writes: "It is fundamental to the Government’s proposals that the media should be given privileged access to the courts. As a journalist, I naturally welcome this.
"And it must be right to draw a distinction between the press and the public at large. Opening the family courts to everyone would put children and families at risk of being identified and stigmatised. It would not be possible to stop identifying information from being made public.
"But Mr Straw does not seem to have given enough thought to what constitutes the modern media.
"If I decide to write about legal affairs on my own website, am I a freelance journalist who should be allowed access to the courts or a blogger who should not? And who is to decide?
"Mr Straw’s officials pointed out that press seats at criminal trials are allocated by court officials. But those denied such seats can usually attend as members of the public. That option would not be available here.
"Journalism is not a profession, in the sense of an occupation with controlled entry such as law or architecture. Anyone can call himself or herself a journalist. It is therefore essential that the final decision on who may attend the family courts as a journalist is one for the courts themselves, not officials.
"Subject to that concern, Mr Straw’s announcement is to be welcomed. His aim is clearly to increase public confidence in the courts...But his proposals are based on the assumption that there are enough journalists to cover the courts effectively. In these straightened times, this may be a rash assumption to make. Unless, of course, you include the growing band of freelances."
As an ex-Crown Court reporter, I think Joshua Rozenberg is right to stress that the final decision on which journalists be allowed to attend family courts should be up to the courts rather than officials. In my experience court officials tend to see journalists as unwelcome outsiders and often put barriers in their way.
He writes: "It is fundamental to the Government’s proposals that the media should be given privileged access to the courts. As a journalist, I naturally welcome this.
"And it must be right to draw a distinction between the press and the public at large. Opening the family courts to everyone would put children and families at risk of being identified and stigmatised. It would not be possible to stop identifying information from being made public.
"But Mr Straw does not seem to have given enough thought to what constitutes the modern media.
"If I decide to write about legal affairs on my own website, am I a freelance journalist who should be allowed access to the courts or a blogger who should not? And who is to decide?
"Mr Straw’s officials pointed out that press seats at criminal trials are allocated by court officials. But those denied such seats can usually attend as members of the public. That option would not be available here.
"Journalism is not a profession, in the sense of an occupation with controlled entry such as law or architecture. Anyone can call himself or herself a journalist. It is therefore essential that the final decision on who may attend the family courts as a journalist is one for the courts themselves, not officials.
"Subject to that concern, Mr Straw’s announcement is to be welcomed. His aim is clearly to increase public confidence in the courts...But his proposals are based on the assumption that there are enough journalists to cover the courts effectively. In these straightened times, this may be a rash assumption to make. Unless, of course, you include the growing band of freelances."
As an ex-Crown Court reporter, I think Joshua Rozenberg is right to stress that the final decision on which journalists be allowed to attend family courts should be up to the courts rather than officials. In my experience court officials tend to see journalists as unwelcome outsiders and often put barriers in their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
