
I added: "In these straightened times, this may be a rash assumption to make."
In March, I reported a High Court judge saying journalists were mistaken if they thought they would be allowed to report full details of family cases when restrictions were lifted next week.
Sir Andrew McFarlane said the Times journalist Camilla Cavendish had given her readers the impression that the press would be able “to attend and freely report upon family court proceedings, and parents will be at liberty to discuss their case before a wide public audience”, he noted.
On Today this morning, Cavendish said it was difficult for reporters to get hold of the documents on which hearings were based and very difficult for journalists to discover what they would be permitted to report.
Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said legislation would be needed to allow further reporting and that opening the courts was only the first step. Further discussions with the judiciary would be necessary.
The prospects of legislation before the general election are clearly nil.
Post your comment
Joshua Rozenberg is an independent legal commentator who presents Law in Action on BBC Radio 4.
- World Youth Day Diary: Day One
- Breivik and Anti-Muslim Bigotry
- Who'd be a TLA?
- Daniel Johnson on Elena Bonner
- In praise of the essay
- Told You So
- Analysis: Al-Qaeda After Bin Laden
- Help JIMAS
- How Western Jihadis See Libya
- Sumption plays hard to get
- The Commentator — A Serious New Website
- Supreme Court: runners, riders and delays
- In defence of Quilliam
- Self-censorship in the British Media
- Parliament Square is not Tahrir Square
- How does this end?
- Gaddafi has little to fear from ICC
- "We call them the nutters, because that's what they are"
- Peter Oborne's Hypocrisies


















