Craig Jeakings looks at the press interactions in the family court
13th Mar 2025 | Blog
Craig Jeakings gives a personal account of his experience with press interactions in the family court.
Winston Churchill said of the press….
“A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize”
As we are all now very aware, from Monday 27 January 2025 journalists and legal bloggers can report on what they see and hear whilst attending any public law children cases in family courts in England and Wales if a transparency order is granted. From 1 May 2025 it will also cover private law children cases in all courts, 29 September will include cases before the magistrates.
Indeed, recently I had direct experience of the court allowing journalists to report in this way. They attended, and then reported on a case that I believed was a sensitive case involving significant domestic abuse and sexual assault.
Prior to attending court, I felt slightly apprehensive and naturally questioned myself. I wondered, would the press take my photograph…would they hound me for a personal comment…how would their presence feel? However, as it turned out it was a painless experience for me. Upon reflection and considering the article subsequently written by the journalist about the case, I think that it was in the public interest and most likely in the best interests of the child. I say that it was ‘most likely’ to be in the child’s interests as we, of course, do not yet know of any long-term consequences.
Another case on which I was representing a client, received widespread coverage in the National press, particularly The Guardian newspaper and LBC radio, was heard last year.
In this case the judge found that the woman’s ex-partner had raped her and stripped him of parental responsibility for their child. The judge ordered that the child’s surname should be changed to that of his mother and that the father should have no contact with the child.
In an earlier ruling, however, a different judge had dismissed mother’s allegation of rape, when the father had accused her of ‘parental alienation’.
The case was one of the first in which the court made a transparency order to allow limited press reporting of the case. The transparency order allowed the press to report and to obtain quotes from the mother. The mother was quoted as saying that she hoped the case would, “shine a light” on the family court and Cafcass.
It certainly could be argued that this case was a good example of the press working well within the family court arena.
Change – How and Why?
How & why are these changes being made? The new provisions follow the success of the Family Court Reporting Pilot, which started in January 2023, and was progressively rolled out over the next two years. At the end of 2024 the Family Procedure Rule Committee approved the extension to all family courts and made the required changes to the Family Procedure Rules and issued new practice directions. The Reporting Pilot was launched in Leeds, Carlisle and Cardiff. In January 2024 it was extended to 16 further court areas.
In short, accredited journalists and legal bloggers can now request to attend court, request documents, speak to, and quote, people involved in proceedings. The open reporting provisions mean that there is a presumption that a transparency order, protecting the anonymity of the children and their families, is granted, unless there is a legitimate reason not to do so. Strict anonymity on proceedings will always be imposed to protect the identity of the children and their families.
The transparency orders can allow reporters access to key documents, to report on what they see and hear and enable the parties involved to discuss proceedings with reporters without this being a contempt of court – although this does not permit the parties themselves to publish information from the proceedings.
The 2023 pilot did not include financial remedy proceedings, however as of January 2024 a similar pilot was instigated in several courts and extended to the Royal Courts of Justice in November 2024. As of Wednesday 29 January 2025, the pilot scheme applies to all financial remedy proceedings taking place in all courts.
President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane said:
“The establishment of the open reporting provisions in all family courts in England and Wales is a watershed moment for family justice.”
“Improving public understanding and confidence in the Family Court is of fundamental importance. Over the last two years there has been a presumption that journalists and legal bloggers can report what they see and hear from pilot courts in England and Wales. The reporting that we have seen has been significant and includes coverage of issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as: children subject to Deprivation of Liberty Orders; the need to limit parental rights for convicted paedophiles and cases of child neglect or abandonment.”
“There have been no known breaches of anonymity of children, and the aims of the pilot, to increase public understanding and awareness of the Family Court, are being realised. I am grateful to all in the court system who have supported the pilot, but I would particularly like to thank all of the journalists and legal bloggers who have engaged with the pilot over the last two years and would like to urge them and others to continue to report on these complex and vitally important issues.”
Advantages and disadvantages of the Press being allowed into the family courts in England and Wales
The question of whether the press should be allowed into the family courts is clearly a contentious issue, accommodating balancing the principles of justice alongside the need to protect the privacy and well-being of those involved in family disputes. Historically, family courts have operated behind closed doors in order to safeguard sensitive information, particularly concerning children and vulnerable individuals. However, in recent years there has been increasing call for greater transparency to improve public confidence in the justice system.
A positive outlook on allowing the Press into Family Courts
Transparency and Accountability
One of the strongest arguments for allowing the press into family courts is the principle of open justice. Transparency ensures that the judicial system remains accountable and free from potential biases or miscarriages of justice. By permitting accredited journalists to report on proceedings, the public gains insight into how decisions are made, which can lead to improvements in judicial practices and policies. Increased scrutiny may also deter any perceived injustices or errors in the legal process.
Public confidence in the justice system
Secrecy in family courts has often led to suspicion and distrust among the public, particularly for those who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the system. Allowing the media to report on cases, albeit with necessary restrictions, can help demystify the decision-making process and reassure the public that courts are acting fairly and in the best interests of children and families.
Exposure of systemic issues
Journalistic reporting can highlight systemic issues within family courts, should they exist, such as the possibility of delays in case resolution, inconsistent rulings, or concerns over the involvement of social services. By shedding light on these problems, the press can encourage policy reform, ensuring that family law is continually improved to better serve those it affects.
Deterrence of misconduct
Transparency can act as a deterrent against misconduct by legal professionals, social workers, or even parents involved in disputes. When court decisions and processes are exposed to public scrutiny, professionals may potentially be more cautious in their actions, understanding that any unethical behaviour could be reported.
Negative impact of allowing the Press into family courts
Risk to privacy and well-being of children and families
The primary concern regarding press access to family courts is the potential breach of privacy for children and families involved in proceedings. Family law cases often involve highly sensitive matters, including child abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues. Public exposure could cause significant emotional distress to children and parents, potentially affecting their well-being in both the short and long term.
Risk of sensationalism and misreporting
Potentially journalists may be tempted to sensationalise cases to attract readership, particularly in high-profile disputes. The complexities of family law decisions may not always be fully conveyed in media reports, leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of judicial rulings. Misreporting could further stigmatise families and undermine the integrity of the court system.
Potential for retaliation and harm
Media reporting may increase the risk of retaliation against individuals involved in court proceedings. For example, in cases of domestic abuse, an abusive ex-partner might exploit media coverage to further harass or intimidate a victim. This concern extends to social workers and legal professionals who may face threats or reputational damage due to publicised cases.
A journalists view
It would have been remiss of me to not consider the perspective of the accredited journalist in this article.
I therefore took the opportunity to discuss with the journalist in attendance at a recent hearing in which I represented the mother, I asked her questions in relation to her experience in court. She kindly provided both her time and informed opinion.
Journalist – Louise Tickle
How have you found the attitude of the courts to your attendance?
When a journalist turns up to court, the attitude of the judge makes all the difference. I was very fortunate in my first forays into family court reporting as my local court was Bristol. The DFJ at the time was HHJ Stephen Wildblood KC, and when I first turned up, the head usher rang up and I was invited to meet him. Wildblood was entirely relaxed with the notion of a transparent court process and made great efforts to ensure that concerns about media attendance were allayed locally, through debates, talks, and plays he wrote and directed to help parties’ understand how the court worked, and how the media did its job of scrutiny.
With one notable – and successfully appealed – exception (Manchester family court), over the ten years I’ve been reporting on family court hearings, I would say that judges have been at the very least accepting, and at best, welcoming and facilitative, of my attendance. Despite numerous attempts to have me excluded, in that decade such a ruling has happened only once, and though I disagreed with it, it was firmly based on one of the permitted reasons, and I could see why the judge decided the matter that way.
What sort of reaction do you tend to get from the lawyers/clients?
Lawyers first: reactions are changing, but not everywhere, and not completely. I used to face regular attempts to have me excluded, usually without any basis, and without the realisation that the lawyer’s or client’s simple preference was not sufficient to remove the press under the rules that entitled us to attend hearings held in private. That happens much less now, but is still going on, I know from separate incidents two colleagues have told me about over the last couple of weeks. I am never quite sure whether it is entirely on instruction. My sense is that many lawyers are nervous of seeing a journalist in court in terms of how the case they are running will be reported. They are also highly protective, understandably of their clients.
Clients next: Mostly, I hear from parties who are desperate for their case to be attended and covered. My inbox receives several messages a day, day in, day out – I must have received thousands of desperate pleas by now, and simply don’t have the capacity to deal with them all. Many people clearly see the presence of a journalist in court as protective, and some have told me that a judge has markedly changed how they speak to parties and manage a case when I or another journalist is in attendance (which worries me enormously). On getting to court, I think I have only once had a mother in a private law case attempt to have me excluded, because she was so anxious about the evidence she was giving in a remitted factfinding. The judge was brilliant – she suggested that if I turned my camera off, it would most likely end up not feeling too difficult for the parties, and that is how things turned out. It has otherwise always been the fathers who object, often vociferously, to my presence. In care proceedings, many family members see the benefit of the media being in court, and despite the immense distress they are feeling, there will often be at least one person who is willing to speak to me.
Conclusion
The debate over press access to family courts in England and Wales revolves around the competing viabilities of transparency and privacy. While greater openness can improve public confidence, highlight systemic issues, and ensure accountability, it may also risk harming vulnerable individuals and sensationalising sensitive cases.
A balanced but protectively considered approach, such as permitting restricted access with reporting limitations to protect identities, may offer a middle ground. Ultimately, any decision regarding press access to family courts must prioritise the best interests of children while maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
Craig Jeakings
2025
