Following the success of the family court reporting pilot, the Family Procedure Rule Committee has approved a proposal to rollout the reporting pilot nationally, through changes to the Family Procedure Rules and new practice directions.
The statutory instrument required to make those changes was signed at the end of December 2024.
The effect of this is that the new ‘Reporting Provisions’ will apply in all family courts in England and Wales from Monday 27th January 2025. This means that journalists and legal bloggers will be able to report on what they see and hear whilst attending any family court, if a transparency order is granted. The change means that there is a presumption that a transparency order, protecting the anonymity of the children and family, is granted, unless there is a legitimate reason not to.
The reporting pilot followed the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane’s, Transparency Review, and started in January 2023 in Cardiff, Leeds and Carlisle. The pilot extended in January 2024 to cover nearly half of the family courts in England and Wales. There have been no known breaches of anonymity in reporting under the pilot.
Implementation to the remaining courts will follow stepped arrangements, as in the reporting pilot, starting with public law cases, then private law cases and finally magistrates. Law Society of England and Wales president Richard Atkinson said:
“Transparency and open justice are important to help the public understand how the law works and how decisions are made. They can raise awareness of what the rule of law and access to justice mean and why they’re important.
Transparency in the family courts also shines a light on how the family courts work for ordinary people and the decisions they can and cannot make for families.
Provided it’s done in a sensitive manner, and the identities of vulnerable parties are protected, reporting these cases is a valuable tool in informing the public.
We are pleased that both private and public family law courts are in the pilot, meaning that cases between couples as well as those concerning state intervention in the safety and wellbeing of children, can be reported. More people will be aware of the complexities facing some families in the courts.
Open reporting is one important step to improving our family courts – which still have severe backlogs – and we hope it will help further public understanding of these challenges.”
Laura Brown, family partner at Keystone Law said that transparency in family courts has “many positive aspects”. She added:
“It promotes accountability and public confidence in the legal system. It allows the public to better understand how decisions are made and to educate them on family law processes fostering better understanding and trust in the judicial system and an understanding of their rights. It can also act as a safeguard to ensure fairness.
There are, however, risks with transparency that need to be navigated carefully to ensure that the positives are not outweighed by the negatives. Family cases often deal with very personal and sensitive issues such as the well-being of children, domestic abuse and financial matters. Publicising these issues can invade the privacy of those involved and add to their stress at an already difficult time. This could lead to parties being reluctant or even not sharing important details which could hinder the court’s ability to make fully informed decisions. Additionally, media coverage in high profile cases can sensationalise private details potentially causing harm to individuals and families.
Striking a balance between openness and confidentiality is therefore crucial. Family courts must remain transparent enough to uphold justice and trust while protecting the privacy and dignity of families navigating some of the most challenging periods of their lives, particularly when children are involved.”
What’s more, Keeley Lengthorn, partner and head of Public Law London at RWK Goodman said that she thinks there was a “reluctance and fear factor” in the beginning as to how transparency orders would work in practice and probably some “fear from Judges also”. She continued:
“Given there have been no known breaches of anonymity under the pilot programme, the family law community has, generally, become more confident that transparency orders will not jeopardise the protection of those involved.
Having had experiences of transparency orders in London, I have seen how they work and continue to work in the best interests of the children and families we represent whilst also providing the media and public with a deeper insight into the legal system. At the heart and core of this is public interest and protecting the families we represent. This has got to be a good thing.”
Anita Hennessey, partner at HCR Law and joint head of family in the Worcester said:
“Transparency within the family court has been highly topical over recent years. The long-established rights to privacy and family life must be carefully balanced against the need for transparency, particularly in cases of public interest.
Media coverage can often focus on highly challenging and emotive cases. Arguably, this risks the cases being reported in the media as a misrepresentation. Particularly if, the media only attend a snapshot of the proceedings, rather than every hearing, which can span many months.
Whilst the family Court should certainly be open to scrutiny, arguably this should be appropriate scrutiny by those within the judiciary. It will remain to be seen whether transparency orders will be in the best interests of children, whose welfare is always the paramount consideration of the Court.”
Nick Gova, partner and head of family at London law firm Spector Constant & Williams commented:
“What is the big secret? There must be a level of openness about these types of proceedings, especially given the impact they have on families throughout the country every day. Judges should be held accountable about their decisions. The recent determination on the Sara Sharif case is testament to it’
People who are worried about privacy can seek to resolve a family dispute outside the courts. There are a number of non-court dispute resolution options including mediation and arbitration. These options offer other advantages including costing less and reducing the risk of conflict between the parties.”