In a speech last week, President of the Family Division, James Munby, called on the government to allow journalists to have full access to evidence submitted in family court cases.
Munby gave the speech during an event looking at ways in which social media affects the family courts.
The President also said that secrecy within family courts meant that judges were able to get away with what are sometimes signficant mistakes. Despite suggesting that factors like exhaustion contributed to judicial error, he went on to say that judges should not be immune from criticism, and that journalists should be able to access the evidence in family cases as well as attend hearings, with a view to offering an analysis of what unfolds inside the system:
“The simple fact is that at present journalists can’t do that without access to the evidence and without reporting what went on in court and saying well, this judge seems to be listening to a different witness than I, and the impression I got from listening to this witness was X,Y,Z and the judge says A,B,C. So I think there are very real problems there… We’ve got to be much more honest about this, and if we are honest about it, things go wrong.”
Munby also offered an interesting sentiment about the often confusing and overly complicated legal process in care proceedings:
“I have a terrible feeling that if you actually stopped some of the parents in these care cases as they were going out of court at the end and you asked them what was going on, what’s been happening, what’s the answer, they’d be unable to explain…And that is an indictment of our system, not of them.”
Whilst Munby is pushing to make evidence in family cases more available, he is unlikely to be suggesting that the rights of families and children, including anonymity where appropriate, should be waived in order to do this. At present, there are rules in place which restrict the kinds of information journalists can share publicly, but this latest suggestion from the President is less about exposing vulnerable families, and much more about highlighting the system’s weaknesses.
Researching Reform fully supports The President’s call to make evidence available to journalists, and hopes that this kind of reporting becomes the norm in future.
Researching Reform 
Nobody discussing secret courts mentions the gagging of parents ! That to me is the ultimate shameful disgrace. No mum can go on internet or on tv or in newpapers and say “My name is Jane Smith and I say my baby daughter Daisy has been snatched by Harringay social services even though I have broken no laws and done nothing wrong”.
Parents should NEVER be gagged when their children are taken !!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, Ian, if reporting becomes a full access deal, this would certainly get coverage.
LikeLiked by 3 people
PS THE NAMES ARE FICTITIOUS AS INDEED THEY HAVE TO BE BY LAW !
LikeLiked by 1 person
You cannot have accountability without transparency.
LikeLiked by 3 people
what is happening is that major mistakes are made in family courts, keeping the methods and the process secret fuels professionals who can then abuse the system…it is time for due process and methods used by professionals to be under scrutiny, that is something that many professionals fight tooth an nail to be kept secret………….this needs to be questioned and brought out into the open
LikeLiked by 4 people
I am hartened by what Munby said in this speech during an event looking at ways in which social media affects the family courts.
I wonder what an ‘Investigative Journaist’ would make of a particular case I have been researching since May 2012.
A young mother who had escaped from 20 years of incestous abuse was ‘impregnated’ by an ex-boyfriend.
Her father stalked and defamed her in a 6 months campaign. One incident is documented in a police report: A stranger claimed she was feeding dog food to her toddler on a hiking trail – a police helicopter and 2 cars turned up to intercept her only to find that everything was in good order. The campaign culminated in a daytime sexual assault on the toddler. A police officer had ordered her to delay reporting by several weeks as it would be ‘too dangerous to go up against her father in court’, and to facilitate an undercover investigation into a major paedo ring.
Unfortunately the mother took the bait and fell for the ‘false flag’ operation.
Four Psychs attested Delusional Disorder. Nobody mentioned the manipulative police instruction in writing. The judge asked the Clinical Psychologist in oral evidence about the police briefing who conveniently attributed this to another ‘delusion’. Again no mention in writing.
Read the inadequate Cardiff Judge (redacted) ruling on my blog:
What you will find is that ‘giving birth to a baby that disappeared’ at age 13 was ‘yet another delusion’.
Also the compromise allegation against the NHS Psychiatrist in South Wales who made self-incriminating remarks was largely ignored.
At least these two incidents are documented in the ruling.
My research suggests that this a child trafficking and revictimisation exercise of a Satanist Ritual Abuse (SRA) network.
Tax-payer money is used to cover up missing babies, toddler rape, arsons and murders!
Where is the outcry of the media?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to know why Britain took away grandparents rights and by who, its another closed door with grandparents gagged as well, what a corrupt country this so called Britain, my research so far is that Britain is the only country with no rights for grandparents sickening country
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Researching Reform fully supports The President’s call to make evidence available to journalists, and hopes that this kind of reporting becomes the norm in future.”
Yes i do to.
Mr Munby is on track to become one of the biggest judicial game changers of our time.
Justice Pauffley also had the leverage to change things in a dramatic way after her 2014 revelations about corruption between Judges and Social workers but she chose not to.
Maybe she doesn’t like the limelight but when it comes down to children being wrongly taken into care there is no time for being shy.
i say release the blood hounds and lets see the Vermin scatter and run.
LikeLiked by 2 people
an out spoken grandmother who had paid untold thousands of pounds in court fees for the grandchild to live with her , at one time in the court she heard untold lies being said against her, she stood up and told the judge it was all hear say and lies, the judge said to the grandmother,
GET OUT OF MY COURT THIS IS MY COURT AND YOU WILL OBEY MY RULES.
MORE MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN AND THE CHILD LEFT IN CARE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BEWARE ,BEWARE ,BEWARE !!
Crooked solicitors and bent barristers who betray you as they work for the SS not for you ! HOW DO YOU TELL WHO THEY ARE???? It really is very very easy !!!These treacherous scoundrels gag their own clients ! Yes they stop parents defending themselves and then agree with everything the “SS” demand !If your lawyers gag you SACK THEM ON THE SPOT IN COURT and represent yourself so you can at least defend yourself against the false allegations that are sure to be made against you..If you do not deny what the “SS” say about you the judge will assume that everything they say about you is true !NEVER be gagged!Deny false allegations.
Nearly as bad are “advisors” who are not lawyers but who will promise you miracles if you give them your money ! Beware Beware as most (but not all) of them are scammers living of the misery of others who then lose not only their children but also their money !!Offer to pay reasonable expenses but no actual fee and you will soon see who is genuine !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Representing yourself against the false allegations is one thing but as Maggie Tuttle said the judge will only shout “GET OUT OF MY COURT THIS IS MY COURT AND YOU WILL OBEY MY RULES.”
and you will loose anyway so what is the solution against this kind of corruption.
LikeLike
You stand a better chance if you represent yourself than if you have a lawyer.I am afraid I reckon my success rate advising such parents is only around 25% but that is better than around 1% for those who hire lawyers !
The solution is of course to abolish family courts dealing with public law cases and to scrap social workers leaving child cruelty or neglect to the police and the criminal courts as once used to be the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Family Courts are unlawful. Why? Because we have a Common Law Trial by Jury Constitution which requires all court cases to be heard by a randomly selected jury of ordinary people so that common sense and the truth can prevail. Judges are not ‘judges’ – they are merely there to make sure that the proceedings in the court are fair and just and that both sides in the case experience a ‘level playing field’. Please consult the work of Kenn D’Oudney and his tome ‘Democracy Defined: The Manifesto’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Judges do whatever they want. Family court is NOT about the best interests of the child at all. It’s about filling these corrupt judges & lawyers pockets. The children continue to suffer. People can lie & submit false evidence in this court & never get punished. My ex did this & I paid good money for the evidence to proof his false evidence & of course cause I represented myself, all the evidence just got swept under the table. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN JUSTICE TREE????
LikeLike
If he doesn’t mind, I could reveal the raw data of a couple of dodgy cases Munby killed off. No way he’d have kept any credibility if the raw data hadn’t been omitted his judgment. Brave judge….making this proclamation just before he retires.
LikeLike
Pingback: Hot Topic: Media Access To Family Court Evidence | Researching Reform