Lawyer bloggers invited to lift veil on family courts

Reed: Project lobbied for FPR change

An effort to encourage lawyers to report on everyday proceedings in the family courts to compensate for lack of press interest is being piloted over the next nine months, it has emerged.

The Transparency Project, a charity dedicated to explaining the work of the family courts, has succeeded in modifying the Family Procedure Rules to include a practice direction that allows legally qualified bloggers to attend family hearings under the same rules as journalists.

The pilot, which runs from 1 October 2018 to 30 June 2019, hopes to better inform the public about what happens in the family courts.

Transparency Project chair Lucy Reed, a family law barrister at South West set St John’s Chambers and a deputy district judge, told Legal Futures that the pilot aimed to lift the lid on cases that were not considered exciting enough to make ‘good copy’ for journalists and justify economically.

The practice direction permits lawyers to report on hearings “on the basis that all the usual reporting restrictions applied unless lifted”.

Lawyers’ “professional disincentive… to commit contempt of court” was “a safeguard against reckless publication of prohibited information”, she said.

She continued: “The rationale behind the proposal was to broaden the sources of information available to the public about family courts, without compromising privacy…

“We hope that they will report on cases that are more typical than they are headline grabbing, and in more high-profile cases may report or explain aspects that the mainstream media do not cover or don’t have space to expand upon.”

The pilot came about because the Transparency Project was refused permission to attend a hearing in the notorious ‘Muslim foster care’ case last year, The child AB.

Ms Reed said: “We think it very likely that if we had been able to report alongside the mainstream media in that case we could have added some useful explanations of what was really going on.

“In future when such cases come up lawyers will be able to attend court knowing that their journey will not be wasted and that, bar reasoned objections in the specific case, they will be able to sit and listen, even if they cannot report the full details of the case.”

Ms Reed tested the scheme on day one of the pilot at her local court in Bristol. She wrote in a blog outlining her experiences: “I’ve learnt that it requires quite a lot more thinking on my feet than I had anticipated.

“I think in future I will pick one hearing to attend and I will identify myself to the parties or their lawyers early on, so they have a chance to raise any queries with me.

“I might ask them before I go into court if there are any particular issues about possible identification… or whether they object to me seeing any documents to help me understand the hearing better.

“I will also explain that at the end of the hearing I might ask the judge to clarify what I can and can’t report.”

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


A new route to practice rights for chartered legal executives

Following approval from the Legal Services Board in May 2022, CILEx Regulation has launched an alternative route for chartered legal executives to obtain independent practice rights.

NFTs, the courts and the role of injunctions

In May, news broke that a non-fungible token was the subject of a successful injunction made by the Singapore High Court. The NFT in question is part of the very valuable Bored Ape Yacht Club series.

Matthew Pascall

Low-value commercial cases – an achievable challenge for ATE insurers

There are many good claims brought for damages that are likely to be significantly less than twice the cost of bringing the claim. These cases present a real challenge for insurers.

Loading animation