One of the biggest changes in Irish society today relates to the breakdown of the traditional family. It is no surprise, therefore, that as the volume of litigation concerning family law has increased, so has the clamour of appeals for changes in the law allowing the publication of what happens in family courts. It is the only area of the law that remains totally closed to any public scrutiny, preventing any informed public debate about the nature of our society.
The rigidity of the rule led to absurdities, like the fact that a complaint against a barrister engaged in family law proceedings could not be taken because this would entail evidence of what had occurred during the proceedings, thereby breaching the rule. The new regulations remove this restriction, and allow for family mediators and researchers from a range of organisations, including the Law Reform Commission, the ESRI, and universities and colleges, to attend family law proceedings. It also allows people nominated by the Courts Service to attend in order to prepare reports, clearing the way for a revival of the scheme that had to be abandoned three years ago in the light of legal advice. This is an advance on the existing situation.
The last Programme for Government promised to reform the in camera rule. Many hoped this would allow media reporting of family law cases, without revealing identities of parties to the proceedings. This already occurs in rape cases. The media are not allowed publish any detail, including the identity of the perpetrator, which could identify the victim. This has contributed to the growth of public awareness of the nature and extent of rape and sexual abuse, especially of children, and led to public debate and changes in policy and law. It has highlighted inadequacies in the way in which such cases have been dealt with, and it is arguable that the mere danger of publicity in itself exerts some control on the behaviour of those involved in cases.
Among many anecdotes that abound about family law cases, there are some alleging inappropriate or inconsiderate behaviour on the part of judges or the professionals involved in cases. These are impossible to either refute or verify. It is regrettable, therefore, that the latest regulations do not permit any media access. Without access for the media it is difficult to see how the benefits of the administration of justice in public, as guaranteed by the Constitution, can be achieved. Much now depends on the Courts Service and the other bodies nominated in the regulations, who will be providing the public with information on what happens in family law courts.