Recording family court proceedings.

FortySeven

I understand the family court is held 'in camera' and is secret. Say someone was to record proceedings and release them, what penalties/charges could be expected for this?

lifeandtimes

I assume it's the same as if you were to release information regarding a court case for murder or anything.

The people involved could sue for damages if they were negativly effected and their privacy had been breached,similar to celebs private moments etc

RustyNut

I'm no legal expert but I'd say you could see the inside of a cell for contempt of court.

FortySeven

RustyNut wrote: »

I'm no legal expert but I'd say you could see the inside of a cell for contempt of court.

Minimum. I'm wondering if there are any other more specific charges.

FortySeven

lifeandtimes wrote: »

I assume it's the same as if you were to release information regarding a court case for murder or anything.

The people involved could sue for damages if they were negativly effected and their privacy had been breached,similar to celebs private moments etc

If names were redacted there could be no libel I assume?

Losty Dublin

FortySeven wrote: »

If names were redacted there could be no libel I assume?

Libel isn't the issue here at all. If a judge is to hear a case In Camera then the judge expects it's details are kept away from and out of the media, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the reports are.

Mongfinder General

FortySeven wrote: »

If names were redacted there could be no libel I assume?

The judiciary do not want under any circumstances camera footage of court proceedings released into the public domain. You are talking about unwanted scrutiny for judges. This lot just want to collect their money and couldn't give a **** about the consequences

FortySeven

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Libel isn't the issue here at all. If a judge is to hear a case In Camera then the judge expects it's details are kept away from and out of the media, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the reports are.

I understand it would ire the judge but the 3rd party could not sue if names, dates etc were redacted? There is no breach of privacy if can't be identified and no defamation if not named?

The judges would be the target in this. They rule in secrecy without consequence. It is a hypothetical scenario. A protest at family court secrecy and the injustices committed by them.

Shining a light on the darkness so to speak.

Pro Hoc Vice

FortySeven wrote: »

I understand it would ire the judge but the 3rd party could not sue if names, dates etc were redacted? There is no breach of privacy if can't be identified and no defamation if not named?

The judges would be the target in this. They rule in secrecy without consequence. It is a hypothetical scenario. A protest at family court secrecy and the injustices committed by them.

Shining a light on the darkness so to speak.

Why not do it the legal way and employ a stenographer.

FortySeven

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why not do it the legal way and employ a stenographer.

You can't record family law courts. Even details of previous hearings are considered hearsay in following proceedings as I understand it.

MarkAnthony

Mongfinder General wrote: »

The judiciary do not want under any circumstances camera footage of court proceedings released into the public domain. You are talking about unwanted scrutiny for judges. This lot just want to collect their money and couldn't give a **** about the consequences

What an absolute lot of bollocks.

I've had the opportunity to speak to a couple of SC Judges who are in two minds about cameras. It's great from an access point of view, the issue is reporting. Is someone really going to watch a case from start to finish or are the 'juicy bits' going to be picked out.

In relation to the family court anyone who thinks the lives of families going through this sort of ordeal should be televised/recorded is an utter idiot. You really want the potential discussion of something child abuse put up on Facebook for all to see?

If you want to see 'juicy' court action with loose cannon who occasionally say what the feck they like go and sit in your local District Court. They're all over the country. You're going to be pretty bored for 99.99% of the time but then we wouldn't want reality getting in the way of a good pub rant now would we.

RustyNut

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If you want to see 'juicy' court action with loose cannon who occasionally say what the feck they like go and sit in your local District Court. They're all over the country. You're going to be pretty bored for 99.99% of the time but then we wouldn't want reality getting in the way of a good pub rant now would we.

Completely OT but a day spent sitting in the back of the district court is the best value for money day out you will get. Comedy gold from start to finish.

FortySeven

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What an absolute lot of bollocks.

I've had the opportunity to speak to a couple of SC Judges who are in two minds about cameras. It's great from an access point of view, the issue is reporting. Is someone really going to watch a case from start to finish or are the 'juicy bits' going to be picked out.

In relation to the family court anyone who thinks the lives of families going through this sort of ordeal should be televised/recorded is an utter idiot. You really want the potential discussion of something child abuse put up on Facebook for all to see?

If you want to see 'juicy' court action with loose cannon who occasionally say what the feck they like go and sit in your local District Court. They're all over the country. You're going to be pretty bored for 99.99% of the time but then we wouldn't want reality getting in the way of a good pub rant now would we.

I'm not talking about the child protection side of family court. Of course that should be protected. I'm talking about the handing out of assets, custody, access etc Showing how these issues are decided upon and allowing people see what to expect. There was a small experiment and cases were published but talking to people who have been through the system, they do not appear to be reflective of what I am hearing. I have read every single one. They are selectively published.

The problem with the judges you mention is that those two minds seem to just stick with the status quo. Family court is antiquated, unjust and needs reform.

MarkAnthony

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm not talking about the child protection side of family court. Of course that should be protected. I'm talking about the handing out of assets, custody, access etc Showing how these issues are decided upon and allowing people see what to expect. There was a small experiment and cases were published but talking to people who have been through the system, they do not appear to be reflective of what I am hearing. I have read every single one. They are selectively published.

The problem with the judges you mention is that those two minds seem to just stick with the status quo. Family court is antiquated, unjust and needs reform.

The legal system is not something that should be pragmatically changed. It needs careful consideration, study and a minimum of disruption. There are many. many people working on reform of every aspect of the legal system, in every jurisdiction.

In regard to Family law in Ireland, it's not a product of Judges. It's a product of our History. Yes changes need to happen, Facebook is unlikely to yield that change.

FortySeven

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The legal system is not something that should be pragmatically changed. It needs careful consideration, study and a minimum of disruption. There are many. many people working on reform of every aspect of the legal system, in every jurisdiction.

In regard to Family law in Ireland, it's not a product of Judges. It's a product of our History. Yes changes need to happen, Facebook is unlikely to yield that change.

I'm not even on facebook. I have been reading about reform. Seems to languish in the doldrums. The contempt of court reform makes a solid example of talking shop reform.

MarkAnthony

FortySeven wrote: »

I'm not even on facebook. I have been reading about reform. Seems to languish in the doldrums. The contempt of court reform makes a solid example of talking shop reform.

What's the point in recording the proceedings?

FortySeven

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What's the point in recording the proceedings?

If you could garner enough support and had a wide enough base doing it, statistics could be extrapolated showing likely outcomes and deciding criteria. An issue which is widely ignored as it seems to be done on an ad hoc, morality based judgement basis.

Without the statistics it is very hard to convince people there is injustice within the system. It would be an attempt to force debate on the issue, leading to eventual reform.

MarkAnthony

FortySeven wrote: »

If you could garner enough support and had a wide enough base doing it, statistics could be extrapolated showing likely outcomes and deciding criteria. An issue which is widely ignored as it seems to be done on an ad hoc, morality based judgement basis.

Without the statistics it is very hard to convince people there is injustice within the system. It would be an attempt to force debate on the issue, leading to eventual reform.

So you're looking for a statistic based recording of outcomes, well fair enough I can't fault you there. I do have a feeling that's already going on though - I'm open to enlightenment there.

FortySeven

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So you're looking for a statistic based recording of outcomes, well fair enough I can't fault you there. I do have a feeling that's already going on though - I'm open to enlightenment there.

I'm sure it is going on somewhere, there is a stenographer in the court but there is no access to the record. I believe it was a pilot in 2013 that allowed a few selected cases to be published but it never went anywhere and most are fairly benign, simplistic cases.

Grolschevik

FortySeven wrote:

I'm sure it is going on somewhere, there is a stenographer in the court but there is no access to the record. I believe it was a pilot in 2013 that allowed a few selected cases to be published but it never went anywhere and most are fairly benign, simplistic cases.

You're thinking of the Child Law Reporting Project, run by Carol Coulter. Worth a Google to read the reports.

FortySeven

Grolschevik wrote: »

You're thinking of the Child Law Reporting Project, run by Carol Coulter. Worth a Google to read the reports.

I've read every one of them. I think they are very selective and nowhere near representative of the large majority of cases. Thanks for the name, I could not remember for the life of me.

It is incredibly hard to even get your case heard in family court. The sheer volume and lack of court dates means the judge is constantly rushing you. Every time I have been there I have never spent more than 15 minutes in hearing, which is madness considering the complexities and potential outcomes. The Carol Coulter papers are very, very limited when you consider the volume of cases nationally.

Mongfinder General

MarkAnthony wrote: »

What an absolute lot of bollocks.

I've had the opportunity to speak to a couple of SC Judges who are in two minds about cameras. It's great from an access point of view, the issue is reporting. Is someone really going to watch a case from start to finish or are the 'juicy bits' going to be picked out.

In relation to the family court anyone who thinks the lives of families going through this sort of ordeal should be televised/recorded is an utter idiot. You really want the potential discussion of something child abuse put up on Facebook for all to see?

If you want to see 'juicy' court action with loose cannon who occasionally say what the feck they like go and sit in your local District Court. They're all over the country. You're going to be pretty bored for 99.99% of the time but then we wouldn't want reality getting in the way of a good pub rant now would we.

Ah bless, looks like your good self and your friends in Dolphin House are afraid of your lives that the absolute nonsense that goes on there might actually end up in the public domain. Your buddies up on constitution hill know they have the run of the place which is no more than a kangaroo court. Zero accountability. As for publishing or broadcasting child abuse don't be so fcuking dramatic. Cases can be recorded, redacted and published at a later date with the identities of those involved protected or not published at all. I know that from speaking with the Barristers and Solicitors that I work with you lot are terrified of social media or any kind of scrutiny for that matter. So the next time your dining with Judge Judy ask her how much extra work would be on her plate if proceedings were to be publicized. They are not interested in changing. It doesn't suit them.

MarkAnthony

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Ah bless, looks like your good self and your friends in Dolphin House are afraid of your lives that the absolute nonsense that goes on there might actually end up in the public domain. Your buddies up on constitution hill know they have the run of the place which is no more than a kangaroo court. Zero accountability. As for publishing or broadcasting child abuse don't be so fcuking dramatic. Cases can be recorded, redacted and published at a later date with the identities of those involved protected or not published at all. I know that from speaking with the Barristers and Solicitors that I work with you lot are terrified of social media or any kind of scrutiny for that matter. So the next time your dining with Judge Judy ask her how much extra work would be on her plate if proceedings were to be publicized. They are not interested in changing. It doesn't suit them.

I love the way that everyone assumes you're in the legal profession as soon as you offer a supporting view.

You think that barristers, who in the main find it quite difficult to make a living, are going to complain about the state spending millions of euro on reporting? It would suit just fine!

So given identities need to be protected you're fine with sensitive cases being conducted in camera?

barman linen

There is a huge irony in that much of current law is based on previous decisions of what ever court.

In family law there is no such reference point. It is day zero over and over again. While there is an appeal process this again is in camera so can never be scrutinised by peers as in every other area of law.

I declare my own personal impact of seeing some incredible decisions at Circuit Court.

There is also a huge coterie of lawyers happy to take it to the shotgun decisions of the court knowing that their client ( usually the mother ) will get the better end of the stick.

Flame away claiming bias - but I have seen this in personal experience - on multiple occasions with multiple Judges.

Jerome77

The in Camera rule is being abused. It is just a way of abusing the other party, I know a case where one party has been summonsed to court over 100 times, isaac wunder order put in place, but not acted upon because of the "rights of the child".

What is going on in irish family law needs to be exposed, and when it is I imagine heads will roll.

MarkAnthony

Jerome77 wrote: »

The in Camera rule is being abused. It is just a way of abusing the other party, I know a case where one party has been summonsed to court over 100 times, isaac wunder order put in place, but not acted upon because of the "rights of the child".

What is going on in irish family law needs to be exposed, and when it is I imagine heads will roll.

I'm really not sure what point you're making.

Either people are aware of it or they're not, you seem aware.

You suggest heads will roll but you've cited why a legal decision was made.

Yes Irish Family law and family law in much of the common law world needs reform, I'm just not sure the mechanism is that people are describing.

Mongfinder General

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I love the way that everyone assumes you're in the legal profession as soon as you offer a supporting view.

You think that barristers, who in the main find it quite difficult to make a living, are going to complain about the state spending millions of euro on reporting? It would suit just fine!

So given identities need to be protected you're fine with sensitive cases being conducted in camera?

One of the major issues for me with the family law court is that judges are both arbiters of fact and law. The judge must uphold the law but if he/she errs, who on earth is going to have the resources to bring judicial review proceedings? I'd like to see,at a minimum, a set up similar to this type, www.ifsat.ie
I know it is another quango and the panel could prove tricky but at least it would give some avenue for aggrieved parties. As for court reporting I am in favour of less serious cases being reported, however, I do feel that detail such as maintenance payments, salaries, living arrangements should no be redacted from publication. I also think that certain cases have no business in the family law court. For instance this vicious little animal should be in a cage an tried by pontious Pilate . http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-kicked-and-punched-in-face-and-body-at-court-34281380.html
As for barristers, well it's a shame that their earning power no longer affords them the trappings of the elite. I guess the 3 bed semi in Blackrock is beyond most of us now. If an established barrister is not pulling in 150-200k a year, well, they're not very good. Either work harder or moderate their expectations.

plodder

I think that since the blanket reporting restriction was relaxed somewhat, one effect has been to dispel some of the myths around family courts, like women only having to turn up to get barring/safety orders, as the case below shows

Man demanded unfaithful wife sell her €50,000 car

What it also shows is the salacious appeal of these cases. I presume all the mud that gets flung can be reported, without needing to be sure how accurate it all is.

FortySeven

plodder wrote: »

I think that since the blanket reporting restriction was relaxed somewhat, one effect has been to dispel some of the myths around family courts, like women only having to turn up to get barring/safety orders, as the case below shows

Man demanded unfaithful wife sell her €50,000 car

What it also shows is the salacious appeal of these cases. I presume all the mud that gets flung can be reported, without needing to be sure how accurate it all is.

It is pure luck. That judge probably didn't like the infidelity. Barring orders have been given for similar.

Robbo

OP, what you're enquiring after is most likely contempt of court. I'm going to close the thread on that basis.

If any of the rest of you wish to discuss family law, feel free to start another thread or avail of the Separation & Divorce forum.

For the record, there are many freely available family law judgments and most libraries in the country have reputable texts on the subject.