search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Louise Tickle on the battles journalists face in order to report on the family courts


ome of the most serious, life-changing powers the state can wield over citizens are exerted behind closed doors in family courts. Media scrutiny of these hearings and the judicial decision-making that changes lives depends on


Behind closed S


Given that the number of newborns removed from their mothers had increased two-and-a-half times over eight years and research was showing new mothers were often denied psychological therapies, Cooper knew there was a public interest in investigating the doctor’s account. He also knew that if he read the court papers without a judge’s permission, he would be in criminal contempt because they contained all the evidence. Though the mother was in full agreement with his


a family judge permitting journalists to investigate and report. Often, this means an expensive, lengthy and hard-fought


battle; typically, local authority and government agencies resist scrutiny, opposing press applications on what often feels like the pretext of protecting a child’s privacy. There can be excellent reasons for not wanting the media to publish details of a case but, for state agencies, there can also be self-serving ones. And what if the judge’s actions need investigating, when the judge is the only person who can give the media permission to report? In the past couple of years, however, journalists have shown themselves willing to enter into this highly contested arena – and are making some gains. Eighteen months ago, The Doctor magazine,


produced by the British Medical Association, won a court case which meant senior staff journalist Keith Cooper could write ‘Born of injustice’, a shocking account of how a young doctor wrongly came to have her baby removed from her at birth. “When you tell people about the


outline of a story like this, they just pull their faces in – well, it’s just disgust,” Cooper recalls. “You can see them thinking that it can’t possibly be true – there must be some other reason they took the child away. So, initially, I was met with a wall of disbelief by colleagues but also from some professionals.”


Opening up from page to stage


SOME parts of the judiciary are taking calls for more openness seriously. In October last year,


Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the family division of the high court and the country’s most senior


10 | theJournalist


family judge, issued family court staff and judges with guidance on how they should deal with media applications to report family court cases. The intention was to make the process simpler, cheaper and more accessible.


This autumn, it is


expected that McFarlane will publish a formal review into the issue of transparency in the family courts. Meanwhile, Judge


Stephen Wildblood QC, a senior family judge based in Bristol, has


written, staged and performed in a series of short plays showing what happens in family courts, which, unlike criminal courts, most people are unfamiliar with. After the


performances, he has run Q&A sessions in


application, seeking that permission involved untold hours of work writing legal submissions, plus months of negotiations with the other parties. Cooper also had to convince his bosses that the story merited the expense of legal advice. The barrister briefed by The Doctor magazine spent two


days in court to argue the case, he says. Cooper’s credibility as a journalist was advanced in evidence to demonstrate that he would treat the sensitive material responsibly. So, did getting access to the documents make a difference? “It was massive,” he says. “Any journalist knows that


Keith Cooper: “You can see people thinking that the story can’t possibly be true”


primary source papers are like gold dust. It uncovered stuff even the mother didn’t know about – the prejudice she’d faced, how some professionals had judged her. It feels almost unbelievable to read how someone who was confused, hours after a caesarian, who hadn’t eaten, was assumed immediately to have a mental health problem and that a physical cause wasn’t even considered.” Other journalists, too, are banging on the closed doors of the family courts. Paul Foot Award winner and now Sunday Times social affairs correspondent Emily Dugan asked for and – after considerable efforts – was given permission to report on hearings held at Birmingham’s central family court. At Tortoise, the in-depth slow news publisher, Polly Curtis secured interviews with senior family judges. Often a judge’s outdated views are glimpsed only because a parties has the financial and emotional resources to appeal: the case of family judge Tolson, who stated that rape within a relationship had not taken


which audience members ask social workers and the actors about what they have just seen. Clifford Bellamy, a


circuit judge until his recent retirement, was the most prolific publisher of family court judgments and therefore, it might said, a transparency champion.


Earlier this year, he


published The Secret Family Court – Fact or Fiction? This explores whether privacy rules damage family courts’ functioning and looks at the impact of privacy rules on freedom of expression not only for the media but also for the families involved.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27