NZ: End secrecy, says Family Court chief
From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3557326&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
End secrecy, says Family Court chief
27.03.2004
By PHIL TAYLOR
The new top Family Court judge believes the secrecy in his court's handling of divorces, separations and child custody should be relaxed.
Judge Peter Boshier, who became principal judge of the Family Court this month, yesterday waded into the political controversy about the court's secrecy after National MP Nick Smith's contempt-of-court conviction.
Frustrated at continued criticism of his court for being secretive or discriminating against fathers, the judge said: "A stage has been reached wherein, given the unrelenting and unfair criticism of the court, the desirability for privacy, as initially desired, may have to be sacrificed."
Judge Boshier defended the court against criticism, and batted responsibility towards politicians.
He said the court was following Parliament's will and any move to make it more open had to come in new laws.
The Family Court has frequently been criticised, particularly by frustrated fathers who feel they haven't been treated fairly.
Its secrecy has become a political issue, culminating in Dr Smith's contempt-of-court conviction this week for publicising a Family Court case involving his constituents.
Dr Smith yesterday described the judge's comments as damage control.
A spokesman for Courts Minister Rick Barker said last night that the Government had no comment to make on the judge's statement.
It would analyse last week's Law Commission report, which recommended making the court more open, before making any comment.
Judge Boshier called for debate on openness while children in particular were protected from "damaging public gossip".
He spoke out yesterday in response to a Herald editorial which said openness was essential.
He said he supported the Law Commission recommendations, which included allowing the media to report proceedings, subject to restrictions on identifying parties.
Having reporters in court had merit, Judge Boshier said.
"There are cases occurring before the courts daily where scrutiny of how unwisely people in relationships have behaved, and how that has impacted on their children, should be better known."
Judge Boshier said the court was not secret, but carried out its obligation to provide privacy.
"Its proceedings are open to scrutiny right now in a number of respects".
Dr Smith said he found it extraordinary for Judge Boshier to say there was nothing secret about the court and that accountability and scrutiny were welcomed.
"It has not been my experience."
Dr Smith said that although the judge was calling for openness, only people the court approved would be allowed in.
"That's not openness. The Family Court needs the disinfectant of sunlight. Nothing short of full openness will do, where people don't need the permission of the judge or are not constrained as the media would be."
But he said the court should have rules to conceal the identities of people involved in cases.
Dr Smith said he had been inundated with "sorry stories" of people's bad experiences with the Family Court, and called for an independent inquiry.
Act MP Muriel Newman, who has a private member's bill before Parliament seeking more openness in Family Court proceedings, said she was delighted by the judge's comments.
Dr Newman said countries which had more open family courts found caseloads fell as more people chose mediation and there were fewer false allegations and fewer appeals.
A fathers' lobby group, the Union of Fathers, said Judge Boshier was being sensible and realistic.
"I'm glad to hear him say it," said national co-ordinator Bevan Berg.
"But our position is that openness in the Family Court is not the end of the answer. Some of the people involved ... in the court have become very comfortable with the way they are operating.
"It needs to be brought to their attention that people don't accept the way they are behaving."
Family law expert and Herald columnist Vivienne Crawshaw said the public should be able to hear some of the "excellent decisions [made] in often tragic and very often difficult circumstances".
"It's frustrating that the public are not aware of them because it would possibly answer some of the critics."
- additional reporting: Catherine Masters and Eugene Bingham
END
|
