Must read
Weekly mandatory food waste collections
Must read
Service charge recovery and the Building Safety Act 2022
Fix it fast: How “Awaab’s Law” is forcing action in social housing
Housing management in practice: six challenges shaping the sector
Why AI must power the next wave of Social Housing delivery
Sponsored articles
How Finders International Supports Council Officers
How hair strand testing should be instructed for family court proceedings
Sponsored articles
Unlocking legal talent
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Ministers delay reforms covering media access to family courts
- Details
Ministers have delayed a decision on whether to open up family courts further to the media until after the Family Justice Review’s final report, which it is expected will be published in autumn 2011.
The decision to postpone implementation of part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 was taken by Courts Minister Jonathan Djanogly and Minister for Children and Families Tim Loughton.
In a written ministerial statement, Djanogly said: “The Act received Royal Assent in April, but the provisions in part 2, which relate to the reporting of family court proceedings by the media, have not yet been commenced.
“This is a sensitive issue, on which a broad range of views have been strongly expressed. It is important that the family justice system is properly understood and commands public confidence. At the same time, there is a clear need to protect the privacy of vulnerable children and adults involved in cases in the family courts.”
The Courts Minister said the delay until the final report would allow ministers to consider any necessary changes to part 2 of the Act in the light of the review’s recommendations.
The Family Justice Review, which is led by David Norgrove, is considering how the whole family justice system can be improved in future for those who rely on it.
In July this year, Lord Justice Munby criticised part 2 of the 2010 Act, saying he was inclined to share the view of some commentators that the legislation was likely to reduce, rather than incrase, the amount of information about children and other family proceedings which finds its way into the public domain.
The judge also attacked the process leading to the introduction of the Act, which he said was “far from transparent”. Among his criticisms was that the Bill received “astonishingly little debate” and only got Royal Assent as part of the “wash-up” process before the election.
Ministers have delayed a decision on whether to open up family courts further to the media until after the Family Justice Review’s final report, which it is expected will be published in autumn 2011.
The decision to postpone implementation of part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 was taken by Courts Minister Jonathan Djanogly and Minister for Children and Families Tim Loughton.
In a written ministerial statement, Djanogly said: “The Act received Royal Assent in April, but the provisions in part 2, which relate to the reporting of family court proceedings by the media, have not yet been commenced.
“This is a sensitive issue, on which a broad range of views have been strongly expressed. It is important that the family justice system is properly understood and commands public confidence. At the same time, there is a clear need to protect the privacy of vulnerable children and adults involved in cases in the family courts.”
The Courts Minister said the delay until the final report would allow ministers to consider any necessary changes to part 2 of the Act in the light of the review’s recommendations.
The Family Justice Review, which is led by David Norgrove, is considering how the whole family justice system can be improved in future for those who rely on it.
In July this year, Lord Justice Munby criticised part 2 of the 2010 Act, saying he was inclined to share the view of some commentators that the legislation was likely to reduce, rather than incrase, the amount of information about children and other family proceedings which finds its way into the public domain.
The judge also attacked the process leading to the introduction of the Act, which he said was “far from transparent”. Among his criticisms was that the Bill received “astonishingly little debate” and only got Royal Assent as part of the “wash-up” process before the election.
Sponsored articles
How hair strand testing should be instructed for family court proceedings
How Finders International Supports Council Officers
Senior Lawyer - Community Services
Principal Lawyer - Community Services Team
Locums
Poll
Latest Webinars
Interveners in financial remedy proceedings
Standish 18 months on
Employment webinar: Managing settlements: the legal and practical issues, and the pitfalls to avoid
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill – what’s in, what’s out and will it work?
Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation: the planning perspective
Procurement Act 2023 webinar: Key Update
Public Law Update Webinar
Inquiry Law webinar series — Session 3: Challenging (& Challenge Proofing) Inquiries
Inquiry Law webinar series - Session 2: Issues of Evidence











