In recent years, the tension between confidentiality and transparency has become a defining feature of family justice reform. The evolution of open justice in this area reflects evolving social attitudes and has distinct parallels with other sensitive jurisdictions where personal and confidential information is often considered.
Privacy as protection
Traditionally, family court proceedings were conducted in private. This approach reflected a belief that confidentiality was critical to protect children and families from potential impacts of public exposure.
Cases involving family breakdown, adoption, and child protection were generally heard behind closed doors. The underlying rationale was twofold: to prioritise the welfare of the child as a paramount consideration, and to
encourage openness and transparency from parties discussing deeply personal matters.
Over time, this approach gained some criticism. Journalists, campaigners, and academics increasingly argued that excessive secrecy fostered mistrust and misunderstanding of the family justice system. Particular concerns developed around proceedings involving the removal of children, with allegations that key decisions of profound consequence were made without sufficient public accountability.
The push for transparency
From the early part of the twenty-first century, senior representatives within the family justice system looked for a shift in the balance between privacy and openness. Incremental reforms permitted limited attendance by members of the press at certain hearings, although reporting remained subject to strict controls and the protection of anonymity.
A further shift occurred when judicial guidance encouraged greater publication of decisions, particularly in serious cases. While judges retained discretion to withhold or redact judgments where necessary, the prevailing expectation moved towards transparency unless compelling welfare or privacy considerations justified restriction. This marked a critical cultural change, indicating that openness and child protection were not inherently incompatible.
The balancing of rights
Judicial reasoning has reinforced a nuanced approach to transparency. Courts are required to balance the right to respect for private and family life against the right to freedom of expression. Neither interest is treated as automatically superior; instead, decisions are made through a careful assessment of proportionality and context.
In practice, this has led to a gradual shift from blanket confidentiality in favour of controlled openness. The public interest in understanding how decisions are reached now coexists with the imperative to protect children and vulnerable individuals from harm.
The modern era
More recent reviews of transparency within family justice have acknowledged that public confidence depends upon greater openness. These reviews concluded that transparency, if managed sensitively, is not inconsistent with the welfare of families.
Key recommendations included expanding media access, simplifying reporting arrangements, routinely publishing anonymised decisions, and coordinating reform through national implementation structures. Pilot schemes were introduced to test these principles in practice, permitting limited reporting by accredited observers under strict conditions designed to preserve anonymity and protect sensitive information. The subsequent expansion of these initiatives has reshaped the relationship between family courts and the principle of open justice.
A qualified principle
These developments reflect a broader judicial approach: open justice as a qualified, rather than absolute, principle. Transparency promotes accountability, consistency, and public confidence, but unrestricted openness carries the risk of real harm to vulnerable individuals.
The challenge lies in achieving transparency without causing unnecessary intrusion, ensuring that justice is visible and comprehensible while preserving dignity and welfare.
The evolution of open justice in the family courts mirrors a wider societal demand for accountability within traditionally closed systems. A shift is underway from near-total privacy towards controlled transparency, both within family justice and across related jurisdictions.
The central question is no longer whether open justice should apply, but how it should be implemented in practice, through appropriate mechanisms, safeguards, and limited exceptions. While privacy remains essential in many cases, selective access and publication can demonstrate that justice is being administered fairly and thoughtfully.
Ultimately, open justice in these sensitive contexts requires a careful balance: one that protects those most at risk while ensuring that the administration of justice remains visible, intelligible, and worthy of public trust.
