Vol. 476 No. 2
15 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on the position of the Law Reform Commission that the rules in relation to the reporting of family law cases are too stringent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6846/97]
The law on reporting of family law cases is contained in various family law statues, including those dealing with divorce, separation, maintenance and domestic violence, which, in general, provide that such proceedings shall be heard otherwise than in public.
In its 1996 report on family courts, the Law Reform Commission affirmed the importance of the right to privacy in family law cases on the basis that they frequently involve detailed discussion of personal relationships. However, the commission recommends that access by a bona fide researcher to such proceedings should be allowed by a judge subject to refusal only on the basis of compelling and stated reasons and that the attendance of students of family law should be allowed at the discretion of the judge. The commission's report was preceded by a consultation paper in 1994.
As the Deputy will appreciate, the Law Reform Commission's recommendations fall far short of any major relaxation of the in camera rule for family law proceedings. Legislation would be required to implement the commission's recommendations and when other legislative priorities are disposed of my Department intends to give consideration to the in camera rule in family law proceedings, taking into account the commission's recommendations.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Notwithstanding that we do not want to infringe on the privacy of the people involved in family law cases, it is important to have some methodology by which we can keep legislation under review because there are few written judgments and transcripts cannot be examined in the vast majority of family law cases at present. Does the Minister agree the development of the law and public debate is inhibited by the fact that this information is not available? Does he see the provision of a mechanism in the short term which will encourage debate on this important social issue?
Yes. I agree that, if all other things were equal, it would be desirable that the family law courts, like all other courts, would be open and the cases reported. Without question it would be helpful to practitioners. However, all other things are not equal in family law cases. There is a serious difficulty having regard to the nature of the material which is adduced before the courts in family law cases which gave rise to the present restriction in virtually all family law cases. Admittedly, the Law Reform Commission suggested some reform but Deputies will see that even what it proposes is rather limited as it recommends providing access to bona fide researchers on the one hand and students of family law on the other.
I am broadly sympathetic to considering some relaxation of the present rule provided schemes can be devised to protect the identity of the people whose cases are involved. It is really a problem which would give rise to difficulty in more rural areas outside the large urban centres. It would not be such a problem in the large concentrated urban areas where anonymity, from description of a case, would not be so readily destroyed. In rural areas people would readily be identified from the description of events and I would not wish that to happen.
As I indicated in my initial reply, when the Department has disposed of its other legislative priorities we will look carefully at the in camera rule to see what variation can be made. When we do that we will take into account the comments of the Law Reform Commission and, indeed, other comments made by Members of the House.
We must protect the identity of people involved in such cases and that must be paramount but I would sound a note of caution on this matter. Will the Minister agree that one of the difficulties we encountered in the run up to the divorce referendum related to the acceptance of the extent of marriage breakdown and the trauma involved? We must have an accurate picture of what is going on in society to be able to frame laws. It is for that reason that a degree of information, irrespective of how it is collated, is essential. I am glad to hear the Minister will examine the matter. How imminent is such an examination? Does the Minister see this happening in the short term?
Deputy Keogh enunciated the reasons it is desirable that there should be some relaxation of the in camera rule. Those were the arguments in favour of it. They are valid and I agree with them. However, there are also arguments to the contrary which must be taken into consideration. It is a difficult area as there are arguments for and against the issue. We must find some basis for some relaxation of the in camera rule and the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, though vague in some respects, may form a suitable base. It is something I will have to consider in the fullness of time, but I cannot give a commitment that it will be done in the short term.
