Britain’s family courts are opening up to reporters

URFAN SHARIF could stand it no longer. On August 10th 2023, just an hour after landing in Pakistan having fled Britain, he phoned the police in England and tearfully admitted to beating and killing his ten-year-old daughter, Sara. A court had awarded him care of Sara four years earlier, despite numerous reports suggesting he had been violent at home. Mr Sharif, along with his wife, is now back in Britain and in prison, having been found guilty of the child’s murder.Every year family courts make critical decisions about children’s care, surrogacy, divorce and domestic violence. Until recently, though, this has largely happened behind closed doors. Before 2009 journalists were banned; even after that, tough restrictions meant few bothered trying to get in. In the past two years, though, a pilot project has improved access. From January 27th the scheme will be widened and made permanent. Public-law cases (such as local authorities applying to take children into care) will be opened up first. Private-law cases (for instance courts resolving parental disputes over children) and those overseen by magistrates will follow. There is a separate pilot for financial-remedies cases, in which separating couples split their assets.The change will bring much-needed transparency to courtrooms that transform thousands of lives each year. This matters for several reasons. Around £1.5bn ($1.8bn) of taxpayers’ money is spent administering courts of all types each year; they have an interest in seeing that it is well spent. Openness could also help raise public confidence. The children and families seeking help from judges and barristers are often vulnerable; they need at least to trust that they will be treated fairly. Raising public awareness will be important, too, argues Dr Julie Doughty, a trustee of the Transparency Project, a charity. Above all, scrutiny could improve decision-making and reduce the risk of tragic consequences. “A lack of openness undermines accountability and allows occasional poor practice to continue unchecked,” concluded a review by Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division.Some worry about privacy. Vulnerable people tell intimate stories in family courts. Yet during the pilot there was no evidence of sloppy journalistic practice, according the National Centre for Social Research, a think-tank. Any reporter who breaches confidentiality rules could face a fine and contempt-of-court proceedings. Safeguards will remain. To attend a case journalists will need a judge’s permission, which can be refused if there is a good reason. They will be told to keep the identities of families and children anonymous.At first court participants may be wary of the press listening in. The hope is that more coverage will improve understanding of what family courts do. Other changes would help. Betterdata collection would help family courts measure the impact of their decisions and flag biases. Simpler listings would make it easier for reporters to know which cases to attend. Judges could build a stronger body of case law by publishing more judgments online. More media access to Britain’s family courts is a big step towards greater transparency. But it is only a start.