The first high profile ex-couple to feel the effect of new legislation that allows the media into family courts in England and Wales are Earl Spencer and his estranged wife Caroline.
The couple, whose marriage foundered after six years and two children, were set to fight out their financial row in court, but failed to get the proceedings held behind closed doors. A judge ruled journalists should be allowed to report the case, in line with new laws introduced in April as part of a government bid to boost public confidence in the system.
According to press reports, the decision appears to have forced a rethink on whether the couple were prepared to see personal details exposed in a case they had both assumed would be private. Their lawyers will now hold further talks to determine how much – or how little – Princess Diana’s brother, said to be worth about £100 million, must give his former wife.
Settling their divorce out of court will not only spare the Spencers from having their “dirty laundry” aired in public, it may also take the heat out of the situation. Courts, by their very nature, tend to be confrontational. Sitting in a lawyer’s office is not only less stressful, but it also provides more opportunity for conciliation.
That is not to say that the Spencers will emerge the best of friends and delighted with the outcome, but if they – helped by their lawyers – are able to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, rather than having a judge impose a settlement, there is every chance they will feel less bitter or resentful.
The way in which a marriage ends is important, because it can affect relations between the two sides in the future. This matters very much if, as in Earl Spencer’s case, there are young children involved. The less acrimonious the atmosphere between the ex-couple, the more likely it is that they will be able to maintain a civil relationship, which will benefit the children.
The Spencers may be frustrated now not to have had their day in court, but in time they might be grateful they were able to resolve their differences between themselves.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Why closing down can help you open up
Mobile technology is a wonderful invention. It allows us to keep in touch with work colleagues, friends and family wherever we happen to be and at whatever time of the day. The likes of iphones, email and social networking internet sites allow us to communicate with people we might otherwise not hear from and aid us in our business lives. They keep us in the loop - enabling us to be “out there” even when we’re tucked up bed.
But therein lies an increasingly serious problem: The fast expanding virtual world of Twitter, text messaging, video clips and music downloads can, and do, get in the way of our real-life relationships and leisure pursuits.
The easy accessibility and addictiveness of Facebook, ipods et al has turned many people’s attention away from face-to-face relationships and into cyberspace.
Professor Nada Kakabadse from Northampton University, who last year carried out study of mobile technology use, was quoted this week as saying: “From my research, you’d be surprised how many people had their BlackBerry next to their beds. They would pick up messages two or three times a night.”
She added: “It certainly created friction in some of the relationships of the people I spoke to. In some cases it led to divorce when one partner felt the other wasn’t paying enough attention to normal human interaction.”
The late Princess Diana famously said there were “three people in this marriage”: these days, an interloper is as likely to be Twitter as another man or woman.
Because of the instant nature of mobile technology and the opportunity it provides to send one-line messages to people, it can be hard to resist. A friend of mine is hooked on the Facebook game Bejewelled Blitz because each turn takes just one minute. The problem is, as she ruefully admits, one minute leads to many more minutes and even hours.
While you’re interacting in cyberspace, even in a cursory way, you can’t be giving your full attention to the person sitting across the dinner table or cuddling up to you between the sheets. And this can damage and demean flesh-and-blood relationships. No one wants to feel less important than a friend or colleague who’s floating somewhere in the ether!
IT gadgetry is clever and beguiling, but it cannot replace the touch of a hand, a sympathetic smile or a deep conversation.
Today’s world relies on mobile technology as never before, but if we want our friendships, family ties and romantic relationships to thrive in the same way, we have to nurture them. And that means learning to log off, close down and press the “off” button.
But therein lies an increasingly serious problem: The fast expanding virtual world of Twitter, text messaging, video clips and music downloads can, and do, get in the way of our real-life relationships and leisure pursuits.
The easy accessibility and addictiveness of Facebook, ipods et al has turned many people’s attention away from face-to-face relationships and into cyberspace.
Professor Nada Kakabadse from Northampton University, who last year carried out study of mobile technology use, was quoted this week as saying: “From my research, you’d be surprised how many people had their BlackBerry next to their beds. They would pick up messages two or three times a night.”
She added: “It certainly created friction in some of the relationships of the people I spoke to. In some cases it led to divorce when one partner felt the other wasn’t paying enough attention to normal human interaction.”
The late Princess Diana famously said there were “three people in this marriage”: these days, an interloper is as likely to be Twitter as another man or woman.
Because of the instant nature of mobile technology and the opportunity it provides to send one-line messages to people, it can be hard to resist. A friend of mine is hooked on the Facebook game Bejewelled Blitz because each turn takes just one minute. The problem is, as she ruefully admits, one minute leads to many more minutes and even hours.
While you’re interacting in cyberspace, even in a cursory way, you can’t be giving your full attention to the person sitting across the dinner table or cuddling up to you between the sheets. And this can damage and demean flesh-and-blood relationships. No one wants to feel less important than a friend or colleague who’s floating somewhere in the ether!
IT gadgetry is clever and beguiling, but it cannot replace the touch of a hand, a sympathetic smile or a deep conversation.
Today’s world relies on mobile technology as never before, but if we want our friendships, family ties and romantic relationships to thrive in the same way, we have to nurture them. And that means learning to log off, close down and press the “off” button.
Friday, June 19, 2009
When both parents are not always better than one
New research published this week warns that warring couples who stay together for the sake of the children could do them more harm than good.
A study carried out by researchers at Cornell University, New York State, found that youngsters whose parents regularly argue are more likely to drop out of school, use drugs and binge drink. They are also more likely to have children early and outside marriage, as well as experience the failure of their own relationship.
The study, called Are Both Parents Always Better Then One?, found problems could continue into adulthood, with children from unhappy families prone to mental health disorders.
Kelly Musick, who co-wrote the report, said: “While children tend to do better living with two biological married parents, the advantages of living with two continuously-married parents are not shared equally by all children.”
This is something I have long known to be true: although previous major research studies have found that children do best when brought up in two-parent families where couples have made a long-term commitment to each other, it cannot be good for children to witness frequent arguments between their parents and live in a tense or frosty atmosphere.
Unless parents are extremely good actors, a difficult or hostile relationship will have a negative effect on children. Youngsters are likely to feel anxious and fearful. They may also experience feelings of guilt – that it’s somehow their fault that their parents are constantly at loggerheads. They can become withdrawn and tentative – frightened to say the wrong thing in case it causes a fresh argument between their parents.
I would always urge couples to try to solve their differences when there are children involved, but when it becomes obvious the relationship is unsalvageable, the better option is to part as amicably as possible.
If done properly, separation will be of greater benefit to the children in the long term than if the parents continue to stay together in a state of malcontent.
Children will be happier if they see that their parents are happier; and if their parents aren’t caught up in a cycle of domestic disharmony, they will be able to focus on being more effective parents.
Couples who decide to separate rather than struggle on together often find that their relationship improves once the atmosphere of conflict is removed. Again, this can only be of benefit to the children.
When parents go their separate ways, there are also advantages to children in having two homes (and two bedrooms), two summer holidays and two Christmas and birthday celebrations.
A study carried out by researchers at Cornell University, New York State, found that youngsters whose parents regularly argue are more likely to drop out of school, use drugs and binge drink. They are also more likely to have children early and outside marriage, as well as experience the failure of their own relationship.
The study, called Are Both Parents Always Better Then One?, found problems could continue into adulthood, with children from unhappy families prone to mental health disorders.
Kelly Musick, who co-wrote the report, said: “While children tend to do better living with two biological married parents, the advantages of living with two continuously-married parents are not shared equally by all children.”
This is something I have long known to be true: although previous major research studies have found that children do best when brought up in two-parent families where couples have made a long-term commitment to each other, it cannot be good for children to witness frequent arguments between their parents and live in a tense or frosty atmosphere.
Unless parents are extremely good actors, a difficult or hostile relationship will have a negative effect on children. Youngsters are likely to feel anxious and fearful. They may also experience feelings of guilt – that it’s somehow their fault that their parents are constantly at loggerheads. They can become withdrawn and tentative – frightened to say the wrong thing in case it causes a fresh argument between their parents.
I would always urge couples to try to solve their differences when there are children involved, but when it becomes obvious the relationship is unsalvageable, the better option is to part as amicably as possible.
If done properly, separation will be of greater benefit to the children in the long term than if the parents continue to stay together in a state of malcontent.
Children will be happier if they see that their parents are happier; and if their parents aren’t caught up in a cycle of domestic disharmony, they will be able to focus on being more effective parents.
Couples who decide to separate rather than struggle on together often find that their relationship improves once the atmosphere of conflict is removed. Again, this can only be of benefit to the children.
When parents go their separate ways, there are also advantages to children in having two homes (and two bedrooms), two summer holidays and two Christmas and birthday celebrations.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Divorce lawyers can be a shoulder to cry on for partners left in the lurch
If you watched the latest series of The Apprentice, which ended on Sunday, you will be familiar with contestant Lorraine Tighe, a 37-year-old single mother of two daughters, who narrowly missed out on a place in the final.
In the penultimate episode, Lorraine told Sir Alan Sugar she had gone through some tough times in her life, one being that her husband had left her “suddenly”.
We don’t, of course, know the details of what happened in this particular case, but to have your partner walk out without warning, in some cases without explanation, is often a devastating experience. Knowing your marriage is coming to an end is difficult enough to cope with, but seeing someone up and go when you didn’t even realise there was a problem can be shattering.
Sadly, this is a not uncommon occurrence. There are many reasons why a partner leaves suddenly, but a common one is that they haven’t been able to admit how they feel and try to work things through. Some people think that effectively disappearing into the night will make the break swifter and cleaner.
What such circumstances in fact do is to heap further trauma on to the spouse left behind. On top of the distress of their marriage having broken down, the deserted partner is also left to struggle with feelings of bewilderment, disbelief and abandonment.
Such emotional upheaval can leave people unable almost to function properly, let alone make decisions about what to do next.
My advice to anyone who finds themselves in this extremely painful situation is to not make any decisions that are not absolutely necessary. Almost no one will be able to think rationally and it’s imperative to let some time pass before starting to make plans for the future.
That said, having people to talk to can afford a crumb of comfort and a dedicated divorce lawyer – who, perhaps unlike family and friends, will have encountered such situations before – can offer that. Going to see a matrimonial solicitor in the first, raw stages of your spouse’s sudden departure does not mean you are making any decision about how to move forward. It can simply be a means of offloading your confusion and unhappiness on to the shoulders of someone who will understand.
A specialist divorce lawyer will also be able to give advice on any issues, such as access to children, which need to be dealt with in the short-term. This can be helpful, as practical arrangements and legal rights are often areas that people in this situation feel most unable to face.
In the penultimate episode, Lorraine told Sir Alan Sugar she had gone through some tough times in her life, one being that her husband had left her “suddenly”.
We don’t, of course, know the details of what happened in this particular case, but to have your partner walk out without warning, in some cases without explanation, is often a devastating experience. Knowing your marriage is coming to an end is difficult enough to cope with, but seeing someone up and go when you didn’t even realise there was a problem can be shattering.
Sadly, this is a not uncommon occurrence. There are many reasons why a partner leaves suddenly, but a common one is that they haven’t been able to admit how they feel and try to work things through. Some people think that effectively disappearing into the night will make the break swifter and cleaner.
What such circumstances in fact do is to heap further trauma on to the spouse left behind. On top of the distress of their marriage having broken down, the deserted partner is also left to struggle with feelings of bewilderment, disbelief and abandonment.
Such emotional upheaval can leave people unable almost to function properly, let alone make decisions about what to do next.
My advice to anyone who finds themselves in this extremely painful situation is to not make any decisions that are not absolutely necessary. Almost no one will be able to think rationally and it’s imperative to let some time pass before starting to make plans for the future.
That said, having people to talk to can afford a crumb of comfort and a dedicated divorce lawyer – who, perhaps unlike family and friends, will have encountered such situations before – can offer that. Going to see a matrimonial solicitor in the first, raw stages of your spouse’s sudden departure does not mean you are making any decision about how to move forward. It can simply be a means of offloading your confusion and unhappiness on to the shoulders of someone who will understand.
A specialist divorce lawyer will also be able to give advice on any issues, such as access to children, which need to be dealt with in the short-term. This can be helpful, as practical arrangements and legal rights are often areas that people in this situation feel most unable to face.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The importance of maintaining bonds with half- and step-siblings
By Georgina Burrows
The Press has devoted many column inches to the apparent end of the marriage of singer Peter Andre and model Katie Price, aka Jordan – a relationship born and played out in the glare of publicity. The media spotlight has also fallen on their three children.
Harvey is Katie’s child by footballer Dwight Yorke and the half-brother of the two young children she and Peter had together, Junior and Princess Tiaamii. Peter has been shown on TV being a loving father figure to Harvey. It is to be hoped that he will continue to have a good relationship with the boy. All too often, step parents take no further part in a child’s life on separation from the natural parent and yet they’ve often been one of the most significant role models in the youngster’s life.
When couples break up, there have to be conversations about continuing contact - both between the adults and children and between the children themselves. When the children are half or step siblings, it can be complicated; even more so if further siblings come along as a result of one or both parents forming a new relationship. These children become the half siblings of the “original children”.
How should parents deal, post separation, with these complicated relationships? In such cases it is even more important for parents to put aside their own feelings of distress, anger and animosity to enable the children to retain bonds – and in some cases form new ones – with their siblings, half siblings and step families.
Only by having shared experiences and being allowed to grow together can children continue meaningful sibling relationships into adulthood, although sibling relationships will, in most cases, outlast the relationships with parents and step parents.
Children benefit hugely from a broad range of relationships and cope well with accepting things “as they are”.
If you are struggling to come to terms with a former partner’s new family or with allowing a former partner to remain in your child’s life, your instinct might be to make a clean break. I would urge you, however, to consider the advantages to the children. And if the children are happier, you will benefit too. The close relationships your child develops and maintains will help them progress to adulthood in a positive way – and forge life-long bonds that will help to see them through difficult times of their own.
• Georgina Burrows is a children law specialist at Benussi & Co
The Press has devoted many column inches to the apparent end of the marriage of singer Peter Andre and model Katie Price, aka Jordan – a relationship born and played out in the glare of publicity. The media spotlight has also fallen on their three children.
Harvey is Katie’s child by footballer Dwight Yorke and the half-brother of the two young children she and Peter had together, Junior and Princess Tiaamii. Peter has been shown on TV being a loving father figure to Harvey. It is to be hoped that he will continue to have a good relationship with the boy. All too often, step parents take no further part in a child’s life on separation from the natural parent and yet they’ve often been one of the most significant role models in the youngster’s life.
When couples break up, there have to be conversations about continuing contact - both between the adults and children and between the children themselves. When the children are half or step siblings, it can be complicated; even more so if further siblings come along as a result of one or both parents forming a new relationship. These children become the half siblings of the “original children”.
How should parents deal, post separation, with these complicated relationships? In such cases it is even more important for parents to put aside their own feelings of distress, anger and animosity to enable the children to retain bonds – and in some cases form new ones – with their siblings, half siblings and step families.
Only by having shared experiences and being allowed to grow together can children continue meaningful sibling relationships into adulthood, although sibling relationships will, in most cases, outlast the relationships with parents and step parents.
Children benefit hugely from a broad range of relationships and cope well with accepting things “as they are”.
If you are struggling to come to terms with a former partner’s new family or with allowing a former partner to remain in your child’s life, your instinct might be to make a clean break. I would urge you, however, to consider the advantages to the children. And if the children are happier, you will benefit too. The close relationships your child develops and maintains will help them progress to adulthood in a positive way – and forge life-long bonds that will help to see them through difficult times of their own.
• Georgina Burrows is a children law specialist at Benussi & Co
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Why grandparents can be the silver lining to the darkest cloud of divorce
More than a million grandchildren are not allowed to see their grandparents, according to a new report by the Grandparents’ Association.
This has led the television presenter Gloria Hunniford to call on the Government to give greater legal rights to grandparents who are separated from their grandchildren when parents divorce.
Ms Hunniford, a grandmother of eight and a family campaigner, wants the barriers that prevent grandparents from having access to grandchildren to be removed.
Her demand is supported by family pressure groups, which say that grandparents face the “unnecessary obstacle” of having to go to court twice to seek permission to see their own grandchildren.
Ms Hunniford said the new report showed “the need for Government to address the importance of grandparents in future policy and legislation”.
She added: “It also demonstrates the need to amend the Children Act 1989 to remove the obstacle that requires the biological family to ask permission prior to making an application to the court for contact.
“It is time for the Government to harness the love and attention that grandparents yearn to give to their families.”
Dedicated matrimonial lawyers are also concerned that grandparents can be sidelined by divorce. The more acrimonious the split, the more likely it will be that grandparents are denied regular – or any – access to their grandchildren.
My view is that it is a sorry situation when a grandparent has to resort to court action to see their grandchildren. Rather than needing to amend the Children Act, I think more should be done to educate and advise separating parents. Divorce lawyers can do their bit by stressing the benefits to children of having regular contact with their grandparents.
Divorce can bring uncertainty and change into children’s lives: grandparents are often the conduit that bridges the gap between past and future. Their presence can be very reassuring for children.
Grandparents can provide a welcome respite to parents who need some time and space to work out the logistics of their divorce and come to terms with the emotional fallout of the separation.
To cut grandparents out of children’s lives – especially when it’s done vindictively, to get back at the estranged spouse – is not only unkind; it’s also short-sighted on a practical level. Grandparents can take kids off your hands when the going is particularly tough – what a great resource!
Many grandparents are devastated when their children’s marriages end in divorce.
That devastation is compounded if they are denied access to their grandchildren – the shining lights in the dark cloud of marital break-up. It benefits the children and the grandparents if regular contact can be maintained. It also benefits the parents: they will gain some much-needed “me” time in the short-term and, longer term; they will see their children flourish from the continuity of care that grandparents provide.
Friday, May 22, 2009
When discretion is an important part of divorce
The opening up of family courts across England and Wales to the media – as part of a government bid to boost public confidence in the system – has prompted concern that people’s privacy may be compromised.
This isn’t so – and the second part of this two-part blog looks at what the new legislation will mean in practice – but for many people, discretion is an important part of the divorce process.
This is particularly the case in high profile and celebrity divorces. In Birmingham, where our law firm is based, the family courts are sensitive to people’s need for discretion and privacy. We regularly act for well known figures based in London, many of whom prefer to have their hearings in Birmingham because court officials allow them to use the back entrance and thus avoid media attention.
A specialist matrimonial lawyer is able to advise clients on where final hearings should take place. Not everyone realises that you can choose to have your divorce settled by a court anywhere in England and Wales, regardless of where you live. So if you want your divorce to be as hush-hush as possible, a good lawyer will suggest a court such as Birmingham.
As well as providing varying degrees of discretion, different courts also have different specialities and judges different views. So even though final settlements should be uniform, wherever they are held, in practice it doesn’t work like that. Judges are human, after all, and some will be more likely than others to grant a settlement that is favourable to you.
There is nothing more frustrating than to go to court after months, maybe years, of protracted negotiation between the parties only to have the deal rejected by a judge, who then imposes his or her own deal. That is far less likely to happen if you have a first-rate lawyer who knows the workings and leanings of particular courts. Niche matrimonial practices like ours that act for clients across the country and overseas have much more experience of different courts than High Street firms that which generally deal only with courts in their town or city.
Finding a good lawyer to handle your divorce is crucial to ensure the best possible financial outcome, but it’s also important if you want the process to be as discreet as possible.
This isn’t so – and the second part of this two-part blog looks at what the new legislation will mean in practice – but for many people, discretion is an important part of the divorce process.
This is particularly the case in high profile and celebrity divorces. In Birmingham, where our law firm is based, the family courts are sensitive to people’s need for discretion and privacy. We regularly act for well known figures based in London, many of whom prefer to have their hearings in Birmingham because court officials allow them to use the back entrance and thus avoid media attention.
A specialist matrimonial lawyer is able to advise clients on where final hearings should take place. Not everyone realises that you can choose to have your divorce settled by a court anywhere in England and Wales, regardless of where you live. So if you want your divorce to be as hush-hush as possible, a good lawyer will suggest a court such as Birmingham.
As well as providing varying degrees of discretion, different courts also have different specialities and judges different views. So even though final settlements should be uniform, wherever they are held, in practice it doesn’t work like that. Judges are human, after all, and some will be more likely than others to grant a settlement that is favourable to you.
There is nothing more frustrating than to go to court after months, maybe years, of protracted negotiation between the parties only to have the deal rejected by a judge, who then imposes his or her own deal. That is far less likely to happen if you have a first-rate lawyer who knows the workings and leanings of particular courts. Niche matrimonial practices like ours that act for clients across the country and overseas have much more experience of different courts than High Street firms that which generally deal only with courts in their town or city.
Finding a good lawyer to handle your divorce is crucial to ensure the best possible financial outcome, but it’s also important if you want the process to be as discreet as possible.
Why media access to family courts is for better rather than worse
By Denise McKenna
Journalists were allowed into family courts in England and Wales for the first time last month as part of a government bid to boost public confidence in the previously “behind closed doors” system.
The new rules are still unclear and, so far, little guidance has been made available as to how the changes should operate in practice. The reality, however, is that the Press will only be interested in newsworthy cases – such as those involving celebrities – so is unlikely attend what may be described as more routine cases.
Nevertheless, there is some concern about the new legislation – namely the fear that it may compromise people’s privacy. I don’t believe anyone needs to be worried about this, as courts have the power to bar media access in the interests and safety of the parties concerned or connected with the case, especially children and witnesses.
Justice Minister Jack Straw has said: "Existing reporting restrictions for the newly attending media will of course still apply to protect children and families, but I want to ensure a change in the culture and practice of all courts towards greater openness, and this is an important step towards that goal."
So the new rules do not change the “private” nature of the proceedings. This means that although the media may be allowed into court, journalists will be subject to existing reporting restrictions:
• Where proceedings relate to children, nothing can be published during the course of the proceedings which is likely to identify any child.
• Where proceedings relate to finances, it is unclear at present to what extent the press will be able to publish information related to the detail of the case.
• The media will not however be entitled to receive or read court documents referred to in the course of evidence, submissions or judgment without the permission of the court.
These restrictions – and the power of the courts to prevent media access in some cases – have led a senior judge, Mr Justice McFarlane, to say in a speech to Resolution family lawyers at their annual conference in Bristol that he didn’t believe the new rules would enable journalists to report fully and accurately on cases.
He pointed out that while journalists are now able to attend family courts, sit in on cases and report on the process, the new rules are likely to mean that they are specifically excluded from reporting the detail of the cases, even after the case is over.
“Whilst accredited journalists can now expect to be permitted to sit in on a private court hearing relating to children, they will face tough sanctions if they report any detail of the particular case that they are observing,” he said. “Reporting will be limited to the process and the gist of proceedings, rather than the detail of any particular case. In other words the reporting will be about system rather than substance.
“The current changes will do little, I fear, to address the very real difficulty that journalists face when confronted, for the first time, after the end of the court case with a parent who is complaining about a miscarriage of justice. Such parents are, I would suggest, highly unlikely to tip a journalist off before the case starts and invite them to exercise their right to attend and observe the proceedings. Under the new scheme, the journalist is in no better position than they are now to evaluate the validity of the complaints that they are hearing.”
The reality is that no one really knows how the new system will work until the practice has been in operation for some time. My belief, however, is that more good will come of it than bad. For too long there has been a feeling that things may happen behind closed doors that shouldn’t happen – in other words, that justice, especially for parents and children involved in family law proceedings, may not always have been done.
Whether the new rules will, indeed, help to promote a fairer outcome in cases is yet to be seen. But the fact that there will now be some public scrutiny, where before there was little or none, has to be a step in the right direction.
If you are involved in divorce proceedings and are concern about possible media interest in your case, my advice is that you raise them with your lawyer.
• Denise McKenna is a solicitor with Benussi & Co
Journalists were allowed into family courts in England and Wales for the first time last month as part of a government bid to boost public confidence in the previously “behind closed doors” system.
The new rules are still unclear and, so far, little guidance has been made available as to how the changes should operate in practice. The reality, however, is that the Press will only be interested in newsworthy cases – such as those involving celebrities – so is unlikely attend what may be described as more routine cases.
Nevertheless, there is some concern about the new legislation – namely the fear that it may compromise people’s privacy. I don’t believe anyone needs to be worried about this, as courts have the power to bar media access in the interests and safety of the parties concerned or connected with the case, especially children and witnesses.
Justice Minister Jack Straw has said: "Existing reporting restrictions for the newly attending media will of course still apply to protect children and families, but I want to ensure a change in the culture and practice of all courts towards greater openness, and this is an important step towards that goal."
So the new rules do not change the “private” nature of the proceedings. This means that although the media may be allowed into court, journalists will be subject to existing reporting restrictions:
• Where proceedings relate to children, nothing can be published during the course of the proceedings which is likely to identify any child.
• Where proceedings relate to finances, it is unclear at present to what extent the press will be able to publish information related to the detail of the case.
• The media will not however be entitled to receive or read court documents referred to in the course of evidence, submissions or judgment without the permission of the court.
These restrictions – and the power of the courts to prevent media access in some cases – have led a senior judge, Mr Justice McFarlane, to say in a speech to Resolution family lawyers at their annual conference in Bristol that he didn’t believe the new rules would enable journalists to report fully and accurately on cases.
He pointed out that while journalists are now able to attend family courts, sit in on cases and report on the process, the new rules are likely to mean that they are specifically excluded from reporting the detail of the cases, even after the case is over.
“Whilst accredited journalists can now expect to be permitted to sit in on a private court hearing relating to children, they will face tough sanctions if they report any detail of the particular case that they are observing,” he said. “Reporting will be limited to the process and the gist of proceedings, rather than the detail of any particular case. In other words the reporting will be about system rather than substance.
“The current changes will do little, I fear, to address the very real difficulty that journalists face when confronted, for the first time, after the end of the court case with a parent who is complaining about a miscarriage of justice. Such parents are, I would suggest, highly unlikely to tip a journalist off before the case starts and invite them to exercise their right to attend and observe the proceedings. Under the new scheme, the journalist is in no better position than they are now to evaluate the validity of the complaints that they are hearing.”
The reality is that no one really knows how the new system will work until the practice has been in operation for some time. My belief, however, is that more good will come of it than bad. For too long there has been a feeling that things may happen behind closed doors that shouldn’t happen – in other words, that justice, especially for parents and children involved in family law proceedings, may not always have been done.
Whether the new rules will, indeed, help to promote a fairer outcome in cases is yet to be seen. But the fact that there will now be some public scrutiny, where before there was little or none, has to be a step in the right direction.
If you are involved in divorce proceedings and are concern about possible media interest in your case, my advice is that you raise them with your lawyer.
• Denise McKenna is a solicitor with Benussi & Co
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
