Written answers
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Department of Justice, Equality and Defence
Court Procedures
9:00 pm
Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Question 396: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the status of the review of the [i]in camera[/i] rule as indicated in the national report to the recent Universal Periodic Review in which he stated his intentions to review this issue further with a view to ensuring that information on cases and outcomes is made public on a systematic basis and the steps he will take to overcome the unintended effect that there is little transparency or public awareness of what is happening in the family law system. [30825/11]
Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Further to the commitment in the Programme for Government to modernise and reform aspects of family law, I have asked officials in my Department to review the operation of the in camera rule. I am aware that, as facilitated by provisions in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 on the reporting of family law cases, the Family Law Reporting Project carried out between 2007 and 2009 provided a useful insight to family law and its operation in the courts for the public in general. However, the cost of maintaining the project in the longer term means that it was not sustainable in the light of prevailing economic conditions. My Department's review will be considering what further provision can and should be put in place.
Comments
John Don
Posted on 31 Oct 2011 10:37 pm (Report this comment)
No other common law country on earth has such a secretive, almost medieval, approach to family law as Ireland does. Scotland, England and Wales, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have ALL moved towards greater openness in their family courts, with qualified court reporting by accredited independent media now standard in each of these jurisdictions.
In his reply Minister Shatter refers to the Government funded Family Law Court reporting Project. This government controlled project was nothing more than another useless quango, delivering propaganda with no scientific basis whatsoever in it's claims denying bias against fathers in the family courts.
Of course there is no cost associated with independent media being allowed report on family law matters!! But why didn't this lightening bolt of wisdom ever strike our Minister for Justice?
New Zealand provides a useful template on independent media court reporting of family law.Their recent Family Courts Matters legislation has a guiding principle which states:"THAT ANY PERSON MAY PUBLISH A REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY COURT WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT BUT THE REPORT MUST NOT CONTAIN IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IF A PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OR A VULNERABLE PERSON IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE"
See section 11A to 11D of the following New Zealand Act as a working example as to how justice can be seen to be done in family
courts:http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1980/0161/latest/D...
These sections now apply to all family court hearings in New Zealand.
However as today's Irish Times reveals, Minister Shatter prefers more secrecy in matters relating to family law. Section's 82.3 and 82.4 of his new Legal Services Bill seeks to block the publication of solictor's/legal firms involved in fees disputes with their family law clients. This increased secrecy denies the consumer rights of all family law litigants, by blocking information pertinent to their selection of which family law solictors/firms to engage. In stark contrast in all other areas of law the names of legal firms/solictors involved in legal fees disputes would continue to be published.
Therefore I will not be holding my breath that a former Senior Solicitor and founder of one of the largest family law firms in Ireland will be leading the charge on family law openness any day soon!
Cathal Garvey
Posted on 31 Oct 2011 4:52 pm (Report this comment)
Minister Shatter has developed a knack of avoiding questions.
When asked for the status of the review of the "In Camera" rule, he fails to outline the status of the review but simply tells Deputy Daly that he has asked department officials to review the "In Camera" rule!!!
We knew that already, Alan!