Winchester Vacancies

SPOTLIGHT

A zero sum game?

The number of SEND tribunal cases is rising and the proportion of appeals ‘lost’ by local authorities is at a record high. Lottie Winson talks to education lawyers to understand the reasons why, and sets out the results of Local Government Lawyer’s exclusive survey.

Ministers delay reforms covering media access to family courts

Ministers have delayed a decision on whether to open up family courts further to the media until after the Family Justice Review’s final report, which it is expected will be published in autumn 2011.

The decision to postpone implementation of part 2 of the Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 was taken by Courts Minister Jonathan Djanogly and Minister for Children and Families Tim Loughton.

In a written ministerial statement, Djanogly said: “The Act received Royal Assent in April, but the provisions in part 2, which relate to the reporting of family court proceedings by the media, have not yet been commenced.

“This is a sensitive issue, on which a broad range of views have been strongly expressed. It is important that the family justice system is properly understood and commands public confidence. At the same time, there is a clear need to protect the privacy of vulnerable children and adults involved in cases in the family courts.”

The Courts Minister said the delay until the final report would allow ministers to consider any necessary changes to part 2 of the Act in the light of the review’s recommendations.

The Family Justice Review, which is led by David Norgrove, is considering how the whole family justice system can be improved in future for those who rely on it.

In July this year, Lord Justice Munby criticised part 2 of the 2010 Act, saying he was inclined to share the view of some commentators that the legislation was likely to reduce, rather than incrase, the amount of information about children and other family proceedings which finds its way into the public domain.

The judge also attacked the process leading to the introduction of the Act, which he said was “far from transparent”. Among his criticisms was that the Bill received “astonishingly little debate” and only got Royal Assent as part of the “wash-up” process before the election.