Transparency, which you will start to hear a lot, is about the open report of family law cases – but still with some restrictions to protect the young and vulnerable. Justice has to be seen to be done – in addition to actually being done – and so the public, who the courts serve, should be able to see how the law that their Parliament makes is being applied day to day. Judges do not make the law; your MP is part of that via Parliament but they do apply it day to day, often trying to work out what, exactly, Parliament intended when they made a law.
In the lcase of Dale Andrew Vince v Kate Vince [2024] EWFC 406, the Family Court, sitting in the High Court of Justice, addressed significant issues regarding transparency in financial remedy proceedings. This case sheds light on the evolving landscape of transparency in family law and the delicate balance between privacy and public interest.
Background
The case involved Dale Andrew Vince (the applicant) and Kate Vince (the respondent) in a financial remedy dispute. The proceedings were conducted in private, but under the new transparency reporting pilot rules, accredited journalists were allowed to attend and report on the hearings. This case attracted considerable media attention, raising questions about the extent to which court documents could be shared with non-attending journalists.
Key Issues and Court’s Analysis
- Transparency Order and Media Access: The court had to determine whether the transparency order allowed for the sharing of court documents with journalists who did not attend the hearings. The applicant’s legal team argued that only attending journalists should have access to the documents, while the respondent’s team and media representatives contended that non-attending journalists should also be permitted to access the documents to ensure accurate and comprehensive reporting.
- Balancing Competing Rights: The court emphasized the need to balance the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to privacy (Article 8), and the freedom of expression (Article 10) as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court referred to previous cases, such as Re S (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47, to highlight the importance of balancing these competing rights.
- Guidance from the Transparency Reporting Pilot: The court referred to the guidance provided by the Transparency Reporting Pilot for Financial Remedy Proceedings, which began in January 2024. The guidance allows accredited journalists to attend and report on hearings, but it also sets out specific provisions for the sharing of court documents.
- Court’s Decision on Document Sharing: The court concluded that non-attending journalists should be allowed to access court documents, provided they are accredited and bound by the same transparency order as attending journalists. This decision was made to prevent “double hearsay” reporting and ensure journalistic accuracy and independence. The court also emphasized that any contentious documents should not be released before the hearing to allow for any necessary redactions.
- Specific Provisions in the Transparency Order: The court made several specific provisions in the transparency order, including:
- Prohibiting the publication of photographs of the child involved in the case.
- Allowing the sharing of court documents between accredited journalists, even if they work for different organizations.
- Ensuring that non-attending journalists do not report on the content of documents until after the hearing has taken place.
Conclusion
The case of Dale Andrew Vince v Kate Vince highlights the ongoing efforts to increase transparency in financial remedy proceedings while protecting the privacy of the parties involved. The court’s decision to allow non-attending journalists access to court documents marks a significant step towards greater openness and accountability in family law. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing competing rights and ensuring that the principles of fairness, privacy, and freedom of expression are upheld in the judicial process.