AddThis SmartLayers

Right to report should be balanced with quest for justice – Lord Chancellor

Greater freedom to report on the courts should not come at the cost of justice, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has warned.

He hailed a free press as an essential part of a healthy democracy, even though its importance was undervalued because it was taken for granted.

Speaking at the Newspaper Society/Press Gazette law conference, he said: “Without a free press those in authority or those with power – commercial or state – are not held to account.”

He was speaking about changes to the way family courts are reported, as the Government attempts to make the process more transparent and boost confidence in what goes on there.

Supporters of the move say the media represents the public by attending hearings.

But opponents fear the media will seek out stories for the front page or those which would boost circulation.

Lord Falconer said he believed there was a place for the media – but reporting rights should be balanced with the need to achieve justice.

He told the audience of journalists, lawyers and media experts: “Media groups argue that the solution lies in letting journalists in as of right – to act as a proxy for the public. To restrict them would be to deny the public and mean that miscarriages of justice could go unrecognised and unreported.

“Justice must be done and seen to be done if there is to be confidence in the system – true. But we are not talking here about a balance of equivalents, but a balance of priorities.

“Important though justice being seen to be done undoubtedly is – it is a second order issue to justice actually being done.

“If justice being done is impaired by, or even at risk of being impaired by it being done in public, one must take precedence over the other.

“In our recent consultation, more than 200 children responded with the vast majority being adamant that they did not want the family court room filled with press or other people who have no involvement with proceedings.

“They do not want people in the court hearing private details of their lives. They are worried about themselves or their families being identified by people who they do not trust to report responsibly.

“The principle that underpins all of the examples I have given this afternoon is the same – the state has a duty to protect the public. In seeking to do so it is not retreating into the comfort of secrecy, but striking the balance that the public demand.”

The Newspaper Society’s response to official consultation on the future of family court reporting said: “We fully support the proposal that the media should be allowed to attend ALL family courts as of right … the principle of a general presumption of openness must be the established if public confidence and accountability is to be achieved.

“The role of the media as representative of the public particularly in relation to attendance at court proceedings is well established and understood.”

The National Childrens Society’s view included a submission that said: “We have concerns about the assumption that the media will work on behalf and for the benefit, of the public alone.

“Allowing the media access to family courts proceedings would give the public greater awareness of the complexities involved in making difficult decisions about a childs care and welfare.

“However the media also inevitably has a function to find news that will increase readership and sell newspapers and magazines.”