Additionally, it is stated in the Administration of Justice Act that it is deemed contempt of court to publish, without a court’s permission, a report of a private hearing which is under the Children Act 1989 or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 or which otherwise relate wholly or mainly to the maintenance or upbringing of a child.
Relevantly, an example of a controversial case about reporting restrictions is the Re P (a child) case where, an Italian mother, who was pregnant was a resident in the UK and was sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Court of Protection ‘forced’ her to have a caesarean and following the birth, the authorities placed a care order on the child and it was concluded that the baby should be adopted. There …show more content…
Julie Doughty analyses opening up the controversial court where she expressly addresses the ‘inherent tension between protecting vulnerable people and presenting a confident public face to the sceptical media’. This discusses the secrecy and transparency surrounding the court, which can be seen on occasion as a negative aspect.
Overall, it can be suggested that the lack of openness within the family courts, especially regarding adoption cases, are to blame for the criticisms surrounding reporting restrictions in family courts.
Juries may be used in certain civil cases, nonetheless presently, family court cases do not have the presence of trial by jury. Therefore, it could be argued that if there was a jury within family courts, that even if reporting restrictions remained in place, that this would increase the justice that can be said to be done. Within family courts, judges’ control the entire process and decide everything which was addressed by Fred Silberberg. He also stated; “this is an awful lot of decision making to vest in the hands of one person”. So, it is questionable whether providing this much power in one person’s hands without any accountability is
Relevantly, an example of a controversial case about reporting restrictions is the Re P (a child) case where, an Italian mother, who was pregnant was a resident in the UK and was sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Court of Protection ‘forced’ her to have a caesarean and following the birth, the authorities placed a care order on the child and it was concluded that the baby should be adopted. There …show more content…
Julie Doughty analyses opening up the controversial court where she expressly addresses the ‘inherent tension between protecting vulnerable people and presenting a confident public face to the sceptical media’. This discusses the secrecy and transparency surrounding the court, which can be seen on occasion as a negative aspect.
Overall, it can be suggested that the lack of openness within the family courts, especially regarding adoption cases, are to blame for the criticisms surrounding reporting restrictions in family courts.
Juries may be used in certain civil cases, nonetheless presently, family court cases do not have the presence of trial by jury. Therefore, it could be argued that if there was a jury within family courts, that even if reporting restrictions remained in place, that this would increase the justice that can be said to be done. Within family courts, judges’ control the entire process and decide everything which was addressed by Fred Silberberg. He also stated; “this is an awful lot of decision making to vest in the hands of one person”. So, it is questionable whether providing this much power in one person’s hands without any accountability is