As reported by the Newspaper Society: A draft Practice Direction for consultation and discussions on publication of judgments by the family courts and the Court of Protection has been published.
The purpose is made clear from the start of the draft direction: "This Guidance is intended to bring about an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection.
"In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system. At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.
"The Guidance will have the effect of increasing the number of judgments available for publication (even if they will often need to be published in appropriately anonymised form).”
The draft would not only introduce a presumption of publication of the judgments by the family courts and Court of Protection, but also a presumption that public authorities and expert witnesses should be named in them, for which the NS has argued strongly.
"In all cases where a judge authorises publication of a judgment:
(i) public authorities and expert witnesses should be named in the judgment as published, unless there are compelling reasons not to;
(ii) anonymity in the judgment as published should not extend beyond protecting the privacy of the families involved, unless there are good reasons to do so."
The Times headlined the development on its front page and leader on Monday following up the campaigning work of Camilla Cavendish. NS senior legal adviser Sue Oake has played a key role in the media discussions.
