Category (2) is more complicated and controversial. Not every expert’s report would be released but only those identified by the judge, having heard submissions.
Consideration may have to be given as to whether the report should be redacted or anonymised and if so who should carry this out.
It is envisaged that initially documents and reports disclosed in this way would remain confidential, unless ordered otherwise, so any copying or onward transmission by members of the media would be a contempt. Where such disclosure was being considered, the expert should be informed prior to disclosure. It would be of note to see whether the prospect of disclosure of their reports would have an impact on the willingness of experts to be involved and also on the content and quality of their reports.
Particular points of interest to the President are:
(1) Which types of documents should be included in category (1) and which types of expert in category (2)?
(2) Should access to such documents be confined to those members of the accredited media who actually attend the hearing or extend to any member of the accredited media entitled to attend the hearing, whether or not they do attend?
(3) What further restrictions and safeguards are desirable?
Hearings in public
Preliminary, pre-consultation views are also being garnered about the possibility of certain types of family cases being heard in public. This is at the early stages of discussion and if the matter proceeds at all, it would initially be by way of a pilot. Views are predominantly sought on three questions:
(1) What types of family case might initially be appropriate for hearing in public?
(2) What restrictions and safeguards would be appropriate?
(3) What form might a pilot take?
When a family court sits in public, the protection offered regarding publishing information under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 no longer applies. Furthermore, the confidentiality attached to documents and information produced under compulsion ends when the material is read out in open court. This has particular ramifications in the context of financial remedy cases. Consideration will need to be given to the implications of both these points and whether any other restrictions and safeguards need to be put in place.
(1) Submit any comments or feedback on the impact and the working to date of the existing Practice Guidance.
(2) Don’t keep your views and valuable experiences to yourselves - submit any comments or feedback on the Consultation Paper topics by email to Andrew Shaw at Andrew.firstname.lastname@example.org
(3) Keep checking http://www.familylaw.co.uk/new_and_comment
for the latest up to date guidance and reports, particularly for news on any pilot projects that may take place in your area.
(4) On twitter? If so, make sure you follow @JordansFamLaw
for breaking family law articles and news around the clock.