Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil is broadly supportive of the Bill but has a number of concerns it would like to see addressed. Openness and transparency are important aspects of an effective judicial process which enjoys public trust. They foster better judicial decisions in the public interest. It is important that the Bill achieves the correct balance between privacy and transparency in reporting family law cases.

Fianna Fáil has published its own Bill on in camera court proceedings, which achieves the right balance between transparency and privacy in the reporting of family law and child-care cases. Fianna Fáil has concerns about the penalty in the Bill for misreporting of cases, which is prohibitive in nature. The penalty may act as a deterrent to journalists in reporting cases which are legitimately within the public interest. Fianna Fáil will propose a number of amendments to ensure there is a greater balance between privacy and transparency that mirrors that of our own proposed legislation. Ultimately, it is vital that the interests of children in cases are fully protected while public trust in the legal system is maintained. The Bill opens family law cases to press coverage under certain restrictions. However, Fianna Fáil considers that it has struck an improper balance which defeats the aims of the legislation in respect of transparency. It is vital that the judicial process is open and transparent to build public trust and improve the judicial decision-making process. The goals of the legislation are to open a window on family law proceedings while observing the constitutional requirement to administer justice in public.

However, there are a number of weaknesses in the Bill that undermine that objective.

Section 5 has seven exemptions. This is restrictive and, ultimately, may defeat the intent of the legislation which is that justice should be administered in public. The series of penalties laid out in the Bill acts as a deterrent to journalists and undermines the aim of opening up the family law process to wider public scrutiny and engagement. The justice system needs to be open and transparent in order to enjoy public trust and ensure that legal decisions are not arbitrary unjust measures by the courts. In the absence of openness, misinformation seeps into public discourse, as has been the case on family law. Numerous legal and public bodies have criticised the current in camerasystem for family law and called for reform. Groups such as fathers' rights organisations have consistently complained about the unfairness of the system and the lack of public knowledge about the process, due to in cameraproceedings, inhibiting public debate about the workings of family law. While the privacy of sensitive cases is important and the interests of children must be fully protected, the public is entitled to know how justice is being administered in the courts. This scrutiny ensures that it is not arbitrary and that just decisions are made in the legal system.

The Bill provides, in section 5, that the press will generally be allowed to have access to family law cases, and to report on them. However, judges will be able to prohibit press access where they are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so or where it is necessary to preserve the anonymity of a party to the proceedings or any child to whom the proceedings relate. The broad array of restrictions under section 5 threatens to undermine the overall goal of the Bill. The wide-ranging discretion given to the Judiciary to restrict coverage should be further clarified by the Minister to ensure that it does not impede greater transparency.

Section 6 outlines liability for the publication of material that identifies parties in a case. The severe penalties associated with these measures may have a chilling effect on the coverage of family law that is contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Journalists should not be unduly discouraged from reporting proceedings of family law cases by draconian penalties.

The Fianna Fáil spokesperson on children, Deputy Troy, recently published a Bill, entitled In Camera Rule in Childcare and Family Law Proceedings Bill 2013, which seeks to throw open the windows on family law proceedings, which have remained hidden for too long. The Fianna Fáil Bill promotes greater transparency without jeopardising the need for sensitivity in the identity of the family involved. We will use this Bill as the basis for our amendments to this proposed legislation.

Separately we will also use this legislative opportunity to press amendments to the Bill with regard to the need for confidentiality for those accessing the new personal insolvency regime. Our amendments will ensure that the identities of those who utilise the regime are made available only to relevant creditors rather than to a wide circle. This amendment will remove a potential hindrance to those who wish to avail of the new service.

On the increasing of the monetary limits in the District and Circuit Courts, we note the proposed changes in the monetary limits of the District Court and the Circuit Court, and also the distinction in the monetary limits between the €75,000 limit for civil proceedings and the €60,000 limit for personal injury proceedings in the Circuit Court. We would merely enter a caveat in this regard. We would question the resourcing and the capacity of the current Circuit Court structure and ask if it will have the capacity to take on the caseload that will ultimately drop into it from the higher courts; whether there will be the required number of judges; whether the court will have adequate capacity; and whether an impact analysis been carried out in this regard.

On the comments on the amending of the Juries Act 1976, we welcome the fact that the Government has taken on board the recent proposals of the Law Reform Commission in establishing a broadened panel of up to 15 members for cases which will be deemed to be lengthy cases. We merely ask for clarification as to what would be deemed a lengthy case as opposed to a regular case.

See this speech in context