Ben Butler convicted of killing his six-year-old daughter

 

"No reporter who heard Neal Gray tell the judge she would have “blood on her hands” if she returned his young granddaughter to her birth parents would have been able to publish his anguished warning. It was given as evidence four years ago against Ben Butler at an appeal heard by the family judge Mrs Justice Hogg. Hogg did return Ellie to her birth parents, and yesterday Butler was convicted of killing his six-year-old daughter in 2013."

 

"In contrast to what happens in a criminal trial, which is held in public, journalists may not publish what goes on in front of a family judge. To do so is a contempt; the sanction is a fine and jail.
There is an almost total lack of transparency in family courts: cases are held in private, and witness evidence and judicial decisions are still, to all intents and purposes, secret. The intention is to safeguard individuals’ privacy at what is likely to be at best an acutely embarrassing, and at worst, immensely painful time in their life. But a shocking lack of public scrutiny and accountability has become the result."

"The ban on reporting means decisions made by judges, as well as evidence given and processes followed - sometimes extremely poorly - by local authority social work departments in care cases, are simply not subject to any sort of scrutiny. Had Gray’s warning been reported, together with the overwhelming witness evidence from the council, police and medical experts against Butler’s fitness to be a parent, there would have been opportunities for significant public debate about the judicial decision that was reached."

"As it was, the only version of events – and assessment of the quality of evidence given in court – that was allowed to reach the public domain was the ruling handed down by the judge. Reporting of what went on in court may not have saved Ellie. But grave decisions that affect the future of vulnerable children and entire families should not be allowed to evade public view in the name of privacy. Although there are difficulties, as I have discovered over 18 months of struggling to report on the family courts, it is possible to do so responsibly while including a great deal of detail in the public interest."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/ellie-butler-family-courts-opened-public-scrutiny-judges?CMP=share_btn_tw

Everyone in family court case must stay secret

"A judge has decided that the identities of everyone involved in a family court case she oversaw must stay secret - including the lawyers."

"Local authority social services bosses asked Recorder Susan Jacklin to make decisions about the futures of three children at a private family court hearing in Bournemouth, Dorset."

"She has ruled that neither the children, the local authority which launched proceedings, nor the solicitors and barristers involved can be identified."

" `The anonymity of the children and members of his family must be strictly preserved,` she has explained in a preamble to her written ruling on the case. `The names of solicitors and counsel have been excluded in order to protect the anonymity and privacy of the children.`"

"Family court judges normally analyses case involving children a private hearings - although journalists can attend. They almost-always anonymise children in rulings but local authorities are often identified and barristers and law firms involved routinely named."

"A politician who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system said the judge's decision not to name lawyers was `nonsense`."

" `How could anyone possibly identify a child by knowing the name of a barrister? Sherlock Holmes would struggle. If that was the case half the barristers in half the courts in England would have to be A.N...` said former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. "`It's secrecy for the sake of secrecy.`"

"Nearly three years ago Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said there was a 'pressing need' for 'much more transparency' in the family justice system. He said the public had a right to know 'what is being done in their name'."

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-mp-criticises-judge-for-family-court-secrecy-ruling-11364049677633#