court reporting doors
place because the woman had not physically fought back, could be reported earlier this year only because the woman won her appeal against his findings – and appeals are held in public. Meanwhile, I am in the middle of a difficult application to report on a family court case for a television documentary. It is taking immense amounts of time and effort – and may not succeed. More encouragingly, in a different case, after making a simple oral application in the high court, I was given immediate permission to speak to everyone involved. Subject to me protecting the family’s – but, despite its attempt to prevent this, not the local authority’s – anonymity, I’m also allowed to report all the detail of the case once it concludes. The extensive, expensive legal process The Doctor magazine
went through is unfeasible most of the time. Although Cooper had to keep his bosses on board, at least he was paid – as a freelance, a lot of my time in making these applications goes unpaid. Sometimes, however, being freelance gives you the freedom to decide to plough on, even though a journalist who does this will never see a penny if their application is refused. Even if it does, the fee for this sort of story never reflects the time, skill or risk required to stand it up. Eighteen months ago, freelance journalist Melanie
Newman applied to the family court in Southampton for permission to read – not, at that point, to publish – the court bundle in a case where a toddler had been removed from her mother and placed for adoption on what the court of appeal later determined had been ‘the slimmest of evidence’. She has just concluded a long, risky court case in which both the local authority and children’s guardian employed QCs to argue against her. “It feels like the process is being made almost ridiculously onerous, and I just wonder why that is,” Newman says. There is an inherent danger, she points out, that “given the time that this process has taken, even if I eventually get permission, will anyone be interested in the story I produce which then will be years distant from the actual events?” Three months after the final hearing, she got judgment. It went against her. Undaunted, she has applied for permission to appeal. If she is allowed to appeal, the case is likely to be heard by the most senior family judge, the president of the family division. Newman had two barristers working on the case for free, plus a solicitors’ firm. The legal profession has also been exceptionally generous with time and expertise when, as a freelance, I have needed help.
“ ”
It feels like the process is almost ridiculously onerous, and I just wonder why that is
Unsurprisingly, Newman concludes that obstacles put in the
way of a journalist going to the original documents to investigate why a serious miscarriage of justice happened are disproportionate. “In any closed system, it’s very easy for abuses to occur, or simply negligence, which doesn’t get picked up,” she points out. It is a situation that is only exacerbated if the media is not allowed to fulfil its watchdog role. It is not only journalists who are agitating for change. In May
2019, after the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show dedicated a week to covering the sometimes fatal risks to children and survivors of court-ordered contact with domestic abusers, 120 MPs demanded a public inquiry into how this was being dealt with by the justice system. Louise Haigh MP said “full exploration… is stifled by a lack of independent, authoritative scrutiny”. Haigh called for the repeal of the law prohibiting publication of what goes on in family courts, arguing the assumption should be that reporting is permitted, subject to anonymity. While The Times was severely criticised for relying heavily
on evidence from a child’s mother, Newman’s experience of attempting to do a far more thorough investigation leads her to believe the law places journalists in a double bind. “We have to rely on a parent’s side of things, because we’re not allowed to see documents; if you want better informed, deeper, more analytical reporting, you have to allow us to see the paperwork,” she says. “I have heard what’s going in the family courts described as ‘Britain’s human rights abuse of this century’ and it may be that future generations do come to see this huge number of children being removed in that way. These are decisions of the absolute utmost importance, yet they’re happening almost entirely behind closed doors.”
theJournalist | 11
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