Report urges ‘clear definition’ of in camera rule

A report on the operation of the in camera rule that restricts public access to family-law proceedings has made 21 recommendations. 

The study was conducted by UCC and TCD researchers, commissioned by the Department of Justice. 

The report recommends that family-law proceedings should continue to be held ‘otherwise than in public’ as set out in article 34.1 of the Constitution and in family-law legislation. 

It calls, however, for the renaming of the in camera rule to ensure that it is understood by all family-court users, suggesting that it be titled the ‘privacy and transparency rule’.

‘Variety of definitions’ 

The report points out that the parameters of the rule have not been defined and delineated in legislation, leaving it largely to the judiciary to define its limits. 

The researchers’ interviews with court users, professionals, and judges found “a variety of definitions” of the rule. 

As a result, the review recommends that the ‘transparency and privacy’ rule be “clearly and consistently defined” in law, policy, and practice, without extending it further than is necessary. 

It adds that there should also be clear provisions in legislation on to what constitutes a breach of the rule – including breaches as a result of social-media posts. 

‘Pragmatic approach’ 

It also makes recommendations aimed at providing certain individuals, professionals, and services with greater access to redacted versions of court orders, as well as measures to track cases and improve data collection.  

The report calls for “a pragmatic approach” that would allow private communications between parties to proceedings and their family members and friends about what is happening in court to seek support and/or access to services. 

“These should be defined in the rule as not being public communications,” the study says, adding that this would be similar to models in Britain and Australia. 

The study says that the courts should retain discretion to lift the in camera rule in cases where it is deemed in the interests of justice to do so, while litigants in domestic-abuse and coercive-control should also be able to ask the court to lift the rule to waive their anonymity and identify their abuser, similar to sexual-abuse and sexual-assault cases. 

Media’s ‘presumptive right’ 

On media coverage, the report calls for “a presumptive right” for all journalists and other authorised members of the media who are members of the Irish Press Council and subscribe to its ethics and standards (and/or those of Coimisiún Na Meán) to attend all private and public family-law hearings at all court levels. 

“Judges should still retain discretion to refuse access in specific circumstances, but the intention is that members of the media should be able to attend most hearings,” the study states. 

The report also calls for the establishment of a “well-resourced, systematic, and firmly embedded” system of reporting of anonymised family-law judgments at all levels of the court system. 

Publication of judgments 

“While it is acknowledged that this is well established in the higher courts, there is a need to ensure that a number of judgments are also published from the lower courts in both family and child-care proceedings,” the report states. 

Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan described the report as “an important piece of research”, adding that he had asked department officials to consider it and come back with policy proposals by the end of this year. 

He added that the department was also finalising the tender for the establishment of a Private Family Law Reporting Project, which will be issued “in the coming weeks”.