Family law changes urged by the board of the Courts Service arise from a change in the law five years ago, writes CAROL COULTER
THE FIANNA Fáil/PD programme for government in 2002 is now a distant memory, but at least one of its promises lived on, and gained further traction this week, when the board of the Courts Service agreed to implement a number of recommendations on family law.
The promise was to reform the in camera rule in family law proceedings, so that information could be made public. This resulted in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which listed various laws relating to family law, and then stated: "Nothing contained in the relevant enactment shall operate to prohibit the preparation by a barrister at law or a solicitor or a person falling within any other class of persons specified in Regulations made by the Minister and publication of a report of proceedings to which the relevant enactment relates."
Translated, this left the people to be permitted attend and report on family law proceedings to be further defined by the Minister for Justice in Regulations - but all solicitors and barristers were already in. The law also said nothing could be published that might lead to the identification of the parties or any child involved.
The Regulations were published just over a year later, and, to the disappointment of many, excluded journalists from those allowed report on family law. Family mediators, academic researchers and persons appointed by the Courts Service to prepare reports could all attend family law proceedings.
In 2006 the Courts Service set up a pilot project to report on family law, and in October appointed this writer to conduct it. Three issues of a magazine, Family Law Matters, containing reports of family law cases, were published, along with a report on the project itself in 2007.
The report recommended further relaxation of the in camera rule, to allow access for the media to family law proceedings. It also pointed out that the 2004 Act, which specifically allows solicitors and barristers attend family law proceedings in order to prepare reports, did not specify for what or whom these reports might be written. Therefore, the report suggested, it did not exclude reporting for the media.
The report also recommended a number of changes to the family law system, directing people towards non-adversarial dispute resolution where possible, and encouraging more resources in order to reduce delays.
Among recommendations now made after a review of this report by a sub-committee of the Courts Service is the appointment of additional judges and support staff directed specifically at family law to deal with backlogs and, at District Court level, establishing a panel of judges with a special expertise in family law.
The committee also concluded that the law, as it stands, does permit media access to family law courts, albeit through the use, directly or otherwise, of a solicitor or barrister.
They pointed out that allowing a non-legally qualified reporter attend for reporting purposes would require a change to the current legislation.
But even this measure of access could lead to a sea change in media reporting of family law.
Carol Coulter conducted the Family Law Reporting Project for the Court Service in 2006/2007