Family courts "under-resourced" says leading lawyer

Simon Heaney

A leading Liverpool lawyer has called for the changes in the family court system, that come into effect on Monday, to prompt a wider debate on an “under-resourced” crucial element of society.

Simon Heaney, a practising Court Advocate at Heaney Watson, one of the largest law firms in the UK specialising in family law, backs the changes on the attendance of journalists and other media representatives at hearings in family court, stating he hopes it “will lead to greater public awareness of good work being done” calling for it to “lead to the family justice system having a higher priority in the country’s legal system”.

Until Monday there was no right for media access to family courts. The change is part of an ongoing reform and review relating to transparency and openness in the Family Justice System.

Heaney adds that while the reform could rid the family court system of its ills, journalists and others must not view the new rules as permission for a “carte blanche approach” to reporting including identifying the parties, reporting contents of court documents and the like.

The media should not be permitted to sensationalise a case, publicising a child’s life “with the world at large watching and reading each twist and turn like an unfolding soap opera”.

Former Goodmans Partners Liza Watson, Simon Heaney and Tracy Winstanley will now run their family law firm from three sites across the City, Broadway, Allerton Road and new premises in the Arts Village, York Street.

* Here is Simon's full commentry on the topic:-

As from Monday the 27th April 2009, there are changes to the rules on the attendance of journalists and other media representatives at hearings in the family courts. Currently in the main, there is no media access available in the Family Courts. This is part of an ongoing reform and review relating to transparency and openness in the Family Justice system. There are two sides to the argument and as is often the case in matters relating to family justice, those views can be quite polarised; gaining consensus can be a difficult objective to achieve.
At one end of the spectrum it is argued that the courts should –as in criminal cases – be open to all, the public should be able to see all that is going on, supporters, family friends as well as media should be entitled to sit in a public gallery and see everything that happens. Justice not only being done, but being seen to be done. The argument follows that all concerned, the Judges, the lawyers, social workers, experts such as doctors and others will somehow tread more carefully, not judge quite as harshly, spare the controversial by virtue of the watchful eye of the public gallery. After all, if hearings take place behind closed doors, then all sorts of things could be happening, children could be being removed unjustly from their parents, fathers being unceremoniously denied contact with their children, doctors bamboozling the courts with medical explanations of alleged injuries to children. If only all this could be seen – the disinfectant of sunshine would cure once and for all the ills of the secret family court system?
On the other hand is it fair that the sensitive, emotional and disturbing facts about a vulnerable child including her name, address, school are simply blazoned across our press? If we asked that child what would she want? Her case to be dealt with privately or with the world at large watching and reading each twist and turn like an unfolding soap opera?
Clearly the latter option cannot be right and indeed it came as some surprise to me that journalists and others expected the new rules to lead to a carte blanche approach to reporting including identifying the parties, reporting contents of court documents and the like.
At the same time, as a practicing Court Advocate it has always seemed a little odd to deal with a case without any media access in the lower courts and then deal with it in the Court of Appeal with the media in and reporting. In my view we can all benefit from allowing sensible annonomised reporting of family cases. It is wholly appropriate that the dignity of those involved is maintained whilst at the same time allowing the media to see what is going on and to report on it in the same way they do with Appeal cases. Likewise in my view it will allow for a balanced view to both sides of the story. The fact that all the hard work, analysis and testing of evidence that does go on in the family court system is currently unreported. Likewise it is true that it is a grossly under resourced system. Will wider reporting therefore lead to a greater public awareness of the good work that is being done and lead to the family justice system having a higher priority? At the same time, will this higher level of openness lead to a wider debate on making this crucial element of out society better? I sincerely hope

Comments about Family courts "under-resourced" says leading lawyer