The first phase of the Courts Service's one-year pilot project on reporting family law has ended with the publication of Dr Carol Coulter's report. She was appointed last year to compile reports on family law proceedings and to gather, assess and present meaningful statistics on these cases for the first time.
The report lays out a plan for continuing with this work, now that the initial project has concluded. It wants to see the Courts Service continuing to develop the digital audio recording of court proceedings and the rolling out of a civil case management system that would also collect useful statistics. The compiling of reports of court proceedings should continue on an interim basis, the report proposes, and the Courts Service should re-examine the whole issue in a year's time.
However, this section of the report also raises the question as to whether the State's obligation to administer justice in public under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights is adequately met by such a reporting regime. It asks the Minister for Justice to look again at the regulations accompanying the Act which relaxed the in camera rule, with a view to extending those allowed to attend and report on family law cases to include members of the press. The protection of the privacy of parties could be guaranteed by the adoption of a strict protocol on anonymity. This is a suggestion which deserves serious consideration from the Minister.
The report also makes observations on the family law system as a whole and makes worthwhile recommendations on how it can be improved. It identifies a number of deficiencies in the system. These range from the pressure on family law lists to the high costs that can arise in such cases, which can run to multiples of hundreds of thousands of euro in High Court cases, and tens of thousands in relatively mundane Circuit Court cases. Proposals to reduce such costs, including the increased use of mediation and the reform of the Legal Aid scheme, are put forward.
One of the main recommendations, for the setting up of dedicated family courts on a regional basis, was first made by the Law Reform Commission 11 years ago and repeated by the Working Group on a Courts Commission two years later, but was never seriously considered. It is to be hoped that this latest report on the family law system will give fresh impetus to this proposal, which mirrors the path taken by most other common law jurisdictions. The increased use of mediation, taking as many cases as possible out of the adversarial system, and case management of the cases that go to litigation, are also proposed.
The board of the Courts Service has announced that it is setting up a special committee to consider the implementation of the recommendations that fall within its remit. It is to be hoped that the Government will show an equal sense of urgency in tackling those aspects of the family law system it can change for the better.