Sir, - Citizens of an informed democracy should reasonably expect an accountable, open, quality justice system. It is encouraging to see the Family Lawyer's Association calling for a relaxation of the in-camera hearings rule as reported by Carol Coulter (The Irish Times, May 15th).
The very secrecy of the events in family law hearings contribute to a low level of public awareness, understanding and discussion on the subject. Some of the following details may serve to enlighten your readers:
1. In 1937 when the facility to hold in-camera hearings was ratified by the electorate in Article 34 of the Irish Constitution, the level of family breakdown which went to court was negligible. This satisfied the requirement of in-camera rules applying to "special and limited cases". Paradoxically in the year 2000, post divorce Ireland, with substantial levels of births outside marriage, family law now accounts for 20 per cent of civil law actions (according to the Denham report on the courts). Almost every extended family in Ireland is touched in some way by family law. The intention of the 1937 populace should not be taken to reflect the needs and wishes of the present population.
2. As a norm, there are no accurate stenographed records of evidence or statements made in family law hearings. Family cases which continue to other court sittings over years are regularly heard by a number of different judges who have no accurate account of prior proceedings. Evidence and emphasis can be changed from one hearing to another or on appeal without traceability to the original statements. Such courts, by definition, cannot comply with the requirements of quality assurance without such traceability.
3. The experience of the last decade of tribunals and exposes have highlighted the impact of gossip and hearsay in our society. Gossip travels vindictively and with more penetration and speed than the Internet. In our small country a person's character can be irreparably damaged by the sort of malicious gossip that surrounds family breakdown. The secrecy laws of the family courts actually prevents sworn, recorded, cross-examined facts from exposing the lies spread through septic circles.
4. As noted in Ms Coulter's report, eminent speakers such as Dr Gerry Byrne and Ms Mary O'Toole SC highlighted the impact of the secrecy of in-camera courts in relation to the maintenance of professional standards and the common good. The incamera rule prevents unprofessional behaviour by a solicitor, barrister, psychologist, psychiatrist or others from being investigated by the their own regulatory bodies. If a litigant experiences judicial abuse in a secret family law court there is no mechanism for redress against the judge. Mr Raghnal O'Riordan Chairman of the FLA confirms that reporting of family law cases is an important part of scrutinising the judiciary. Ms Andrea Martin, a solicitor in RTE, described a "geyser effect" of people bursting to tell what happened to them in court, but they are curtailed from doing so because of the secrecy laws. Our recently-appointed Chief Justice Keane stated in a judgment on in camera hearings (April 2nd, 1998): "The most benign climate for the growth of corruption and abuse of powers, whether by the judiciary or members of the legal profession, is one of secrecy".
In his judgment on an in-camera issue (delivered April 3rd, 1998), Mr Justice Robert Barr stated: "I have been unable to discover any reported Irish authority in which the parameters and consequences of the in-camera rule have been definitively argued on behalf of interested parties on each side of the case".
There is a clear need for a paradigm shift in the secrecy rules under which family law courts presently operate. Ms Coulter's report confirms that even the professionals who are themselves protected seek openness. The missing dimension in the debate is the perspective of the general public as an "interested party" and those who use the courts system. How can citizens in a democracy, who are the end users of the legal system and to whom the law actually belongs, be assured of justice and fairness when access to and the right to publicly debate details of the operation of the family law courts is denied to them.
Abuse of power through secrecy, has been exposed over the last decade in all layers of our society. Why should concerned citizens expect anything different when the legal system is opened up to independent scrutiny? Unchecked star chamber courts are dangerous and are simply inappropriate for an information society driven by young, educated Irish women and men. - Yours, etc.,
Liam O Gogain, Muirhevna, Dundalk.