In this country, family law cases are held in camera. There are strengths and weaknesses in this procedure.
Firstly, the family has privacy to deal with what are essentially personal issues.
However, because there is no reporting, there is no general understanding of what happens in these courts. This means that solicitors and families operate in a bit of a vacuum and lack a context within which to place their personal experiences. It also means there is a lack of consistency and it means there are sometimes issues which do not get the public airing that might benefit society in general.

An effort has been made in recent years to deal with those problems by presenting these reports which were written by Dr Carol Coulter are an attempt to look at what is happening in the family law courts and are valuable documents.

When a family law, or a domestic violence issue becomes a criminal law issue, the case is often heard in open court and there are certain circumstances where journalists will put the pen down or editors decide that on balance, the case has more relevance to the family than to the public interest.

I posted a little on this topic on another thread this morning

Quote :

I was speaking only yesterday to a family law solicitor who was complaining that when domestic cases become criminal and are heard in the District Court, the press has the right to publish the details. She feels this is unfair.
But this story here I think is a good example of where those cases deserve to be made public.

On the other hand, the likes of John Waters feel that there is no reason why family law cases should be heard in camera and that for the benefit of all concerned, they should be heard in public.

...and cactus flower responded with

Quote :

That story in the Herald deserves a thread to itself Kate P. There are a lot of different issues in your post - there are big problems out of having family law law behind closed doors. There is no possibility of reference to previous cases so how can there be any consistency. There seems not to be any proper record or what happens in the cases. People wondering whether or not to take their problem to the courts can have no idea of what might happen. Then you get something like that poor boy being made to give evidence in open court in his father's trial - surely a video link would have done?

Obviously there are arguments on both sides. Justice should be administered in public, though there are specific legal instances where that is prohibited; either the general public are not permitted and the press are (eg, sexual abuse hearings, juvenile cases) and there are limitations on information which the press can publish; or no third party is allowed in at all (eg family law court).

I am in favour of family law courts being held with the press present and bound by the strictures of responsible reporting - though in other countries, if you read the introduction to Dr Coulter's main report, you'll see that it doesn't mean that the press will cover or publish the cases - because not only do we learn about the legal system, the possibilities and probabilities involved in taking cases, but more importantly we learn about ourselves as individuals and as a society.

Nice thread Kate.

For once, I don't have a firm opinion. On the one hand, if only for consistency, I'd like to see publication - on the other hand, folks who know the persons in court wouldn't need a whole lot of information to identify them. We can be a very cruel society and it doesn't take much to consider someone to be a victim and to treat them so.

Still, I don't like the idea of the possibility that a family could get two different rulings in two different courts. Fair enough, there's always going to be a certain lack of consistency between courts. But on paper at least, these inconsistencies are minimal and I suppose, that it comes down to whether one wishes to have a human wear the judge's wig or do we want a computer to wear it. There are of course occasions where reality leaves the building. But the law is set up to tackle and right those wrongs. It's different with family court though, isn't it?

I've heard some real horror stories and I'm pretty sure of my sources being legit. Having said that though, most stories I hear, come from those having a stake in the outcome of the cases they've told me of; whilst I'm sure of my sources' and what I'm told, I don't have certainty. You know what I mean? Fifteen people can leave a courteoom and each have a different opinions as to what's just happened. That's possibly very hypocritical coming from someone who puts a biased slant to most of what he writes. Hypocrisy or no, I feel very uncomfortable knowing that there is an open aspect of our justice system that sees a production-line of action and yet neither its functionality nor its practices are open to public scrutiny. The law they use is available, sure. If that were the issue though, there'd be no problem with slapping a wig on a computer.

The family, the cornerstone of society: and yet, we've no idea how well or how badly we look out for our foundation, where it possibly counts the most.

There'd have to be a very strict code adhered to if doors were opened to journalists, that's a given I s'pose. It is very possible though. There could be a time-lag for articles introduced and a prohibition placed on publishing geography and identities (including the judge?). Obviously there'd be more ingredients, but I doubt, that in totality the finished code itself would be overly verbose.

I bet there are lots of judges in family court (well one or two) who'd have an opinion or two worth the listening.

I don't have the expertise and court experience that you have, Kate P and Hermes, but I feel that the scope for bad and inconsistent justice is much greater behind closed doors. A person thinking of taking a case at the moment has no way of knowing what might happen - there is no bedrock of precedence being built up.
The anonymity of the people concerned is the most that can be done imo whilst allowing the law to work fairly and reasonably consistently.

i agree cactus. one of the prime checks and balances for a society is that justice is open and available for criticism

Is there no trust in the judicial system anymore?

905 wrote:

Is there no trust in the judicial system anymore?

bout the same as with banks and the church and politicians i'd imagine. oh how the mighty pillars of society have fallen!

There may be scope for incorrect application of the law due to hearings behind closed doors. However, let us remember that in camera hearings provide for the proper application of law in circumstances where public scrutiny is aside from unwise, also unhelpful. Such circumstances extend beyond family law to sensitive issues of company law and other aspects as well. It is particularly important in Company Law for an application pursuant to s.205 of the Companies Acts - namely where a member of a company is being oppressed.

I support the continuation of such proceedings in situations where it is necessary to maintain an objective application of the law - which it is in many instances. I am however, with Kate and would support a restrictive court report for family law proceedings. I support it more for statistical information and the development of an adequate quantum than anything else. Quantum being the measure which should be applied to a particular circumstance - e.g. regarding personal injuries 'a broken leg will get you €xx'.

I would also point out that notions of justice and notions of the law are entirely different thing. The courts exist for application of the law, whether or not that entails justice.