BLOG: Sam Hillas

By Ben Schofield on May 6, 09 12:03 PM

Sam Hillas.jpg

I THOUGHT I'd kick off my LDPLegal blog with the 'exciting' news that the media are now allowed in the family courts... or so it was reported in the national press this week.

As a family barrister the new reforms regarding media access are of special interest to me and my kind and, given the fanfare surrounding the introduction of the new rules on April 27, I fully expected to turn up to Court this week being chased by the paparrazzi, and with cases being delayed whilst the queue to the ladies (for a quick re-application of lippy) stretched around the block.

I shouldn't have been worried.

No paps in attendance in the Liverpool family courts this week and a quick perusal of the reforms shows why: only "accredited" media representatives can be present at court and then only for a limited category of cases.

Once in court, journos cannot read the case papers (without which the rest of the proceedings are likely to make little sense), cannot report on the details of the cases they attend without the specific permission of the judge and can be excluded at any time if it is felt to do so would be in the interests of justice.

A sad day then, it has been widely reported, for the campaigners who have fought hard to ensure open access to the family courts in the interests of openness and transparency.

But for those of us at the front line of the family justice system, we are breathing a sigh of relief.

Family proceedings, especially those involving children, are traumatic enough for the parties, without the prospect of journalists in attendance who might be able to discuss the details of their private life in the local and national press.

I'm all for openness and transparency but, especially in the local press, anonymised details of specific cases would be impossible to report without someone, somewhere making the link to the identity of the parties.

Even for those cases not involving children (specifically, financial cases upon divorce) some of the more "juicy" aspects of their private (for private, read "sex") lives disclosed by the parties, whilst they may be of public (for public, read "media") interest, cannot be said to be in the public interest to be made known.

Jack Straw has made it known, however, that these recent reforms are not the end of the matter and further reforms are proposed.

They will, no doubt, receive a mixed reception but for now, I'm just glad that the numerous pressures of the job will not be compounded by the additional worry of having to ensure I'm wearing matching shoes.

SAM HILLAS is a family law barrister with Atlantic Chambers.