Restrictions on reporting family law cases set for review

The Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, is ''examining'' recommendations made in a Court Service report on media coverage of in camera family law hearings, according to a departmental spokesman, writes Kieron Wood.

The report has called for the removal of most restrictions on the reporting of

family law cases, which are currently heard in private. In England and Wales, media organisations are now entitled to attend private hearings. The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No 2) Rules 2009 introduced new rules in April which apply to all proceedings held in private, except for conciliation or negotiation hearings.

Until now, British media have not been allowed into court for family law cases, so have been unable to report on the details of high-profile divorces, such as that of Paul and Heather McCartney last year.

The new rules allow ''duly accredited representatives and news gathering and reporting organisations'' to be present during such hearings, although reporters may be excluded:

* in the interests of any child involved,

* for the safety of parties or witnesses,

* for the ''orderly conduct of the proceedings'' or

* where ''justice will otherwise be impeded or prejudiced''.

The new rules do not change the 'private' nature of the proceedings, so the 1960 Administration of Justice Act still applies, making it contempt of court to report almost any information concerning minors.

''Accredited'' journalists are those with a press card, although other bona fide journalists may be admitted at the discretion of the court. The judge may not exclude reporters without giving them ''an opportunity to make representations''.

This recognition of the right of the media to make representations has rarely been acknowledged in the Irish courts, although Mrs Justice Susan Denham ruled in the 1998 Irish Times v Ireland case that media representatives should be heard before a court imposed reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings. She said limitations should only be imposed ''after hearing evidence and submissions from the parties and any relevant representatives''.

Mr Justice Paul Carney, in an earlier judgment involving contempt by RTE, said that the media performed a constitutional function by reporting on the courts. However, this phrase was omitted from his subsequent approved written judgment, so does not have the force of law in Irish courts. Almost all family law legislation in Ireland is subject to a statutory requirement that the hearings should be in private.

But Section 40(3) of the 2004 Civil Liability and Courts Act waters down this statutory requirement for in camera hearings.

The 2004 act says that nothing in the specified acts shall operate to prohibit a barrister or solicitor - or any other class of person specified in ministerial regulations - from preparing and publishing a report of proceedings, or from publishing the decision of the court in such proceedings.

A report presented to the board of the Courts Service by the Family Law Reporting Project Committee said the 2004 legislation meant that media organisations could employ a barrister or solicitor to report on family law cases, but any attempt to use a reporter who was not legally qualified ''would require a change to the current legislation''. The committee did not recommend such a change, as it said that ''reasonable reporting arrangements for decisions and judgments'' already existed.

In his foreword to the report, committee chairman Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said that the committee considered that ''increased awareness of what goes on in family law courts'' was a ''crucial prerequisite'' for a greater level of trust in judges' handling of family law disputes. He said that, subject to the requirement to protect the identity of couples and children, restrictions on reporting family law cases should be ''reduced to the greatest extent possible''.