Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
No fault divorce - the end of the blame game
The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which passed into law on 25 June 2020, will introduce "no fault" divorce in England and Wales for the first time. This article looks at what it...
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
View all articles

New Practice Guidance to increase transparency in Family Courts

Sep 29, 2018, 18:59 PM
New Practice Guidance to increase transparency in Family Courts
Slug : New-Practice-Guidance-to-increase-transparency-170114-963
Meta Title : New Practice Guidance to increase transparency in Family Courts
Meta Keywords : family law
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 17, 2014, 08:25 AM
Article ID : 104513

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court and the Court of Protection, has issued Practice Guidance in order to bring about ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in the Family Courts and the Court of Protection.'

The Practice Guidance has been issued in a bid to bring about greater transparency in the way in which the courts operate so as to improve public understanding of the court process and increase confidence in the court system.

The Guidance, which will take effect from 3 February 2014, will increase the number of judgments available for publication. It is part of a three-strand incremental approach to the reform in the family justice system, which Sir Munby is introducing: ‘Initially I am issuing this Guidance. This will be followed by further Guidance and in due course more formal Practice Directions and changes to the Rules (the Court of Protection Rules 2007 and the Family Procedure Rules 2010).

In April 2013, Sir Munby issued a statement, View from the President's Chambers: the Process of Reform [2013] Fam Law 548, in which he said: ‘I am determined to take steps to improve access to and reporting of family proceedings. I am determined that the new Family Court should not be saddled, as the family courts are at present, with the charge that we are a system of secret and unaccountable justice.'

To begin with, the Guidance applies only to judgments made by certain judges; however, in due course, it may be extended.

The starting point is that permission should be given for the judgment to be published unless there are compelling reasons why the judgment should not be published and permission to publish a judgment should always be given whenever the judge concludes that publication would be in the public interest.

However, Sir Munby maintains that any person who is the subject of proceedings in the Court of Protection and their family members should not normally be named in the judgment unless the judge orders otherwise. Also if deciding whether or not to publish a judgment, a judge should have regard to all circumstances, including rights arising under relevant provisions under the Eurpoean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) such as Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), and the effect of publication on any current or potential criminal proceedings. Public authorities and expert witnesses, however, should be named unless there are compelling reasons why they should not be.    

Categories :
  • News
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from