• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Daily Archives: March 10, 2020

Consultation: Family Courts and Bloggers

10 Tuesday Mar 2020

Posted by Natasha in Consultation, Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

A consultation launched by the Family Procedure Rule Committee wants to look at people’s views on legal bloggers attending family court hearings.

The Committee is headed up by the President of the Family Division Andrew McFarlane, and consists of seven additional judges, one lay magistrate, one justices’ clerk, two barristers, two solicitors and a Cafcass officer.

The consultation has been launched two years after a pilot allowing bloggers into family courts was implemented, and aims to get a better understanding of how people feel about legal bloggers entering these courts and reporting on children proceedings.

The pilot was designed after several Presidents of the Family Division acknowledged a need to increase transparency inside the family courts. The consultation document echoes that same sentiment and says, “where appropriate and possible, there is need to increase transparency in the family court to improve public understanding of the court system. Few judgments are made available to the public and the idea behind giving access to legal bloggers is to allow increased openness whilst maintaining anonymity.”

The consultation invites responses to the following four questions:

Question 1

Do you think accredited legal bloggers should be permitted in to attend hearings in family proceedings?

Question 2

Are there any restrictions that should be put on them alongside any existing restrictions?

Question 3

Under the pilot scheme, the blogger must show evidence that they belong to a professional legal group and sign a declaration that attendance is for “journalistic, research or public legal educational purposes”. Do you think that this provides the necessary safeguards to protect the needs of children and families who are parties to, or subject of, family proceedings?

Question 4

The need to protect the individual who is the party to, or subject of, proceedings, even from inadvertent reporting on social media is paramount. Do you think that the proposals in place under the pilot go far enough in doing so and have you any concerns or suggestions for improving this area?

Submissions should be sent to Simon Qasim at FPRCSecretariat@justice.gsi.gov, or by post at the address below, by 5pm on Friday 20 April 2020:

Simon Qasim

Family Justice Policy

Post Point 7.17

Ministry of Justice

102 Petty France

London

SW1H 9AJ

You can access the consultation document here. 

The Committee’s About Us page is also worth a read, as it contains the Committee’s agendas, members’ interests and Minutes of its meetings.

Blogger

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,506 other followers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

March 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Feb   Apr »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×
    loading Cancel
    Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
    Email check failed, please try again
    Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
    Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
    To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
    <span>%d</span> bloggers like this: