As thrilling and empty a theatrical sugar rush as the biggest bumper bag of sweeties ever
Shares dived again as the City was officially described as a bear market for the first time in five years
More...
Falconer refuses to lift veil of secrecy over family courts
Last updated at 21:07pm on 20.06.07
Media ban: Lord Falconer
Lord Falconer crushed an attempt to open the proceedings to public scrutiny and declared that "children's right to privacy" comes first.
In a document called Openness in the Family Courts - A New Approach, he proposes even tighter restrictions on what can be said about family cases.
The clampdown is in direct contrast to the views of his own Minister of State Harriet Harman and comes amid concern over decisions taken in family courts.
Last year the Daily Mail highlighted the way a couple in Essex had their children taken from them after courts held in secret decided they were too intellectually slow to bring them up - even though no harm had come to the children.
An academic study later found that such families were being singled out by social workers and should instead be given support.
Torn apart: The Essex family, with faces hidden to protect their identity
And a High Court judge last year found that family courts had allowed social workers to take a nine-year-old girl from her family "on a whim". A court ordered the girl to be taken into care on the basis of 13 false assertions by a social services manager.
The document document provoked anger from fathers' protest groups which have campaigned against secrecy, saying it hides bias and incompetence.
Families Need Fathers, the pressure group that has co- operated with ministers to try to end what it says is bias against men, said its views had been ignored. Secrecy, it added, would undermine confidence in the courts.
A spokesman for high-profile Fathers4Justice said: "To have secret justice in a 21st century democracy is a disgrace and goes against everything we are supposed to believe in.
"The family courts are not just a closed shop - they are more like something out of North Korea. The way they work means parents have fewer rights than terrorists."
The Ministry of Justice under Lord Falconer's leadership has ordered the family courts to remain closed and proposed that coroners should get new powers to keep the media out of their courts.
It also established a new Court of Protection to rule over the lives of the dying and incapacitated which will make life- or- death decisions behind closed doors.
But an attempt by the ministry to restrict the Freedom of Information Act through stiff costs and limits is likely to be blocked by Gordon Brown when he becomes premier next week.
Lord Falconer's decision to maintain secrecy in the family courts was a humiliating reverse for Miss Harman. Last year she said that, because of public disquiet, the courts should be open to reporting by accredited members of the media.
But the Lord Chancellor said yesterday: "I have listened to the views of children and young people. The clear message was the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity."
He gave weight to a survey of 200 children in which those asked said they feared being reported in the media. The Lord Chancellor said children worry about "people who live in their neighbourhoods finding out about how the courts have dealt with their family".
He also took into account the views of those who "protect, support and represent' children, such as lawyers and heavily State-funded charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children's Bureau.
The consultation paper from the Ministry of Justice yesterday says courts should remain closed but judges should in some cases release anonymous transcripts of cases. The document said media representatives could apply to be allowed in to specific cases.
But the courts should stay closed because organisations such as the NCB believe newspapers and broadcasters are irresponsible and will concentrate on celebrity cases.
Family hearings held in magistrates' courts, which are currently open to the public, will be closed in future, the paper said. It recommended setting up websites to explain how the courts work.
Critics questioned the right of the NSPCC and NCB to have their view given precedence as they take almost £20million from the State.
Reader views (4)
Here's a sample of the latest views published. You can click view all to read all views that readers have sent in.
It is astonishing that this Government thinks it appropriate to keep family court proceedings secret. And to give credence to "independent" charities that are funded to the tune of some £20m a year from public funds is beyond belief. It would appear that the family court is unable to perform adequately, as evidenced by the many cock-ups over which it has presided, and is in serious need of public scrutiny. Without this, the court has no need to improve and will be able to continue ruining innocent families' lives.
- Mark, London
It occurs to me that the "children's right to privacy" can be protected by simply concealing their names and identities. The proceedings can be available for public scrutiny if the people involved are refereed to as family 405, child A, child B etc.
I was recently involved in a custody case and the proceedings are a shambles. There is a different judge for each court date, records are lost and under the current system there is no accountability or scrutiny.
This needs to change.
- Tobin, Andover
So what is falconer going to do about social workers that take other people's children away on a whim? SURELY THAT IS ABDUCTION? WHY DO THE PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS ! THIS IS EVIL!!!!!
- Jane, London
12°c
18°c
