header-logo header-logo

Stop press

15 May 2015 / Christopher Butler , Harriet Errington
Issue: 7652 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
nlj_may_15_butler

Christopher Butler & Harriet Errington examine the court’s discretion to exclude media representatives from family proceedings

It is a fundamental principle at the heart of the rule of law in England and Wales that court proceedings should be held in public and decisions reported publicly. Somewhat at odds with this, however, can be the right to respect for family life. Special considerations must apply to family proceedings due to their sensitive nature; hence the Family Procedure Rules 2010 include provisions dealing with media access to the family courts. This article assumes that the family division judge is not sitting in open court. In such circumstances one would need to apply for the case to be heard in private.

Where proceedings are being heard in private, rr 27.10 and 27.11 of the Family Procedure Rules state that accredited media representatives have the right to attend family proceedings but that right is subject to the court’s discretion. Furthermore, even if the court chooses to allow accredited media representatives to attend there are still various limitations

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll