Dr Julia Brophy, Principal Researcher – Family Justice
Proposals to
extend further the rights of media access in children and family cases remain
problematic. Further evidence from young
people (2014) arrived on the agenda at the same time as Trinity Mirror has paid
damages averaging just under £21,000 each to settle six phone-hacking claims
from well-known individuals. Nearly 50
more compensation cases are outstanding, and Trinity Mirror is understood to
have set aside just under £10m to cover the costs of these claims. It is the first significant admission
of phone hacking by a newspaper group outside the Murdoch group; and it is
described as significant because it is said to confirm that the practice of
phone hacking was widespread in parts of the British newspaper industry. The
lawyer representing the successful claimants is quoted as saying: 'There are
many more people who will now be able to make claims against the Mirror Group
titles in respect of their unlawful activities'.
That news
will not be lost on young people who engaged in the NYAS ALC consultation
(J Brophy, forthcoming in December [2014] Family Law): they referred directly to the
Leveson Inquiry and to personal experiences of press behaviour during
discussions about the media and the
‘Next Steps’ proposals. But their views about media access to family
courts are
not simply predicated on a lack of trust in the media - important though that
was. They have fundamental concerns
about children’s privacy and long term health and well-being.
Young people are not naive about this area: they understand the complexities and the political dilemmas to be addressed; they also know judges and other professionals are not beyond making mistakes, but they do not agree that the press could or should be arbiters of justice, fair play or children’s best interests. They understand the issues for some parents who may feel aggrieved by judges’ decisions; but they argue that children’s need for protection of their privacy and long term welfare must come first. Like other research findings they say that parents in proceedings are not necessarily best placed to represent children’s views and interests on media coverage of cases: they give examples of poor judgment by parents and lasting problems for children. They look to family judges to protect them and consider how this can be better achieved.
Despite this, the
Government failed to honour a commitment it gave to ascertaining the views of young
people when announcing it would not implement Part 2 of the Children Schools
and Families Act 2010 (Government Response to the Justice Committee sixth
Report of Session 2010-12; Operation of the Family Court, (Cm 8189, 2011), paras
73 – 75). The ‘Next Steps’ proposals thus sit uncomfortably against Ministerial
statements that children are at the heart of the new family justice system,
that they are the experts, that their views matter and they are taken seriously
(eg
S Hughes, Family Justice Board Young People’s Conference, July 2014).
It is however not
simply that trust in the British press is at an all time low: the proposals are
likely to be unworkable – if young people are told the truth about media access
during their ‘journey’ through state intervention and legal proceedings, there
is a real risk that they will decide not to engage in that process. As young people point out, that is an
indefensible position for family and child friendly justice in the twenty-first century:
it is unethical, it breaches their Art 12 Rights under the UNCRC and it is
potentially dangerous. They also say the media is unlikely to meet the
objectives of public education or become an informed reliable ‘watchdog’ over
the work of courts.
Those in favour of, or at least hopeful
that the proposals in the President’s ‘Next Steps ’ will resolve the issues, might be assisted by the views and proposals
of children and young people – they are also part of ‘the public’. Young people argue that it is naïve to think
that democracy ‘as we know it’ is dependent on media access to family courts:
they say there are other ways to inform the public about family courts and where
necessary improve accountability and transparency of decisions. They argue that it is necessary to scrutinise
this issue in more detail. Parliamentary
scrutiny is required, with time for the issues to be explained, and to enable
young people to contribute on the basis of their knowledge and experience – as Government
promised on repeal of Part 2 of the CSF Act 2010. Young people are caught between paternalistic
and condescending attitudes regarding the information they should or should not
have, and a policy agenda where they have no effective voice or means of discussing
the issues with other young people who would be affected by the ‘Next Steps’
proposals.
