1 Muirhevna
Secrecy or Privacy of the
Family Law Courts?
Letter to the Editor
Dear
Editor,
The
recently announced Civil Liability and Courts Bill
reported in the Irish Times (
The
“In Camera” rule as it presently operates, prevents anybody, including
professional bodies, and notably politicians, elected TDs or Senators from being made aware of or
discussing the details of a family law case. Furthermore there are no complete
and accurate written or taped records kept as a matter of course of the words
used by anyone during such court cases.
There
are two distinct aspects of the “in camera” rule which need consideration, namely
the separate elements of Secrecy and Privacy.
Chief
Justice Keane (Supreme Court April 2 1998) stated that “the most benign climate
for the growth of corruption and abuse of powers, whether by the judiciary or
members of the legal profession, is one of secrecy”. Secrecy prevents benchmarking, monitoring and
evaluation of the quality of justice provided in family courts. It prevents
judges, solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses and court staff from being
investigated for misbehaviour. The culture of secrecy within the
family court system, is underpinned by the continuing failure by the courts
administration to keep accurate records of the evidence given and the
statements made in court.
In
order re-establish public confidence in the quality of justice in the Family
courts all elements of secrecy need to be outlawed.
Privacy,
as distinct from secrecy is intended to address the intimate and vulnerable
aspects of family problems. Ostensibly secret courts protect the identities and
the intimate details of parties to a case, in
particular the children. However, the reality is that in foyers and waiting
areas of family courts throughout the country it is obvious who is involved in
family disputes.
Gossip,
the original broadband, which from the beginning of time has spammed
communities, particularly in rural and smaller urban settings, with it’s
mixture of part-truth and part-lies, spreads unchallenged
details of relationship breakdown. Contrary to the intention
of protecting the privacy of families,
the “In Camera” rule, and the non existence of accurate records of evidence,
gives gossip free reign and allows it to gain credence. Having access to
accurate records of what is claimed and stated in court could provide family
members with evidence to protect their reputations, which is a basic
constitutional right. There are also many cases of false allegations being made
under the veil of secrecy of the Family courts. It is in the public interest to
expose any such false allegations and to hold the alleger accountable publicly.
There
are already effective examples such as the hearing of rape trials, which are
held in public but with appropriate reporting norms.. If this model is combined with the installation of
competent digital recording and archiving equipment in every court case, and
the institution of effective, independent means of redress for litigants
against judicial and professional misbehaviour, then the family courts can serve justice and
fairness by being respectful of the individuals identities while ensuring
transparency, accuracy and accountability.
Yours Etc
Liam O Gogain
Chairman ParentalEquality.ie
Ph:-
087-2543997