Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 January 2017
130. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the functionality of the in camera rule within family law cases; her further views on the persons this rule primarily protects; her views on whether it offers protection to family members who are not guardians of the concerned child; her further views on whether a review of the rule is needed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [41461/16]
View answerThe purpose of the in camera rule in family law and child care proceedings is to protect the identity of the parties and any child to whom the proceedings relate. While the general principle as set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann is that justice be administered in public, the underlying concern is that family law proceedings relate to matters which are sensitive and private to the parties and there is no public interest in requiring that their identities be published. The in camera rule offers protection to other family members from the publication or broadcasting of information relating to them which would affect the anonymity of the parties or any child concerned.
The operation of the in camera rule was reviewed by the last Government on foot of a commitment in the previous Programme for Government to reform and modernise aspects of family law. As a consequence of this review, the in camera rule was modified by Part 2 of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 to allow bona fide members of the press to be present in court during family law and child care proceedings and to report on such proceedings subject to strict conditions. This reform of the in camera rule was made to enable the media, researchers and legal professionals to gain access to valuable information on the operation of the law in this area. We have all seen the results of this change in the form of increased coverage of family law proceedings in both print and other media. This coverage has proven in the round to be very responsible, in that while public interest issues have been highlighted for debate, this has been done in such a way as to protect identities of individuals involved. It is also, of course, very informative in terms of policy making and review.
However, it is open to the court to exclude representatives of the media from the court or otherwise restrict their attendance during the hearing or parts of it, or restrict or prohibit the publication or broadcasting of evidence given or referred to during the proceedings. The court may impose these restrictions where it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so (i) to preserve the anonymity of a party to the proceedings or any child to whom the proceedings relate, (ii) by reason of the nature or circumstances of the case, or (iii) if otherwise necessary in the interests of justice.
Section 40A of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 prohibits the publication or broadcasting of any information which would be likely to lead members of the public to identify the parties to family law proceedings or any children to whom the proceedings relate. Anyone breaching this prohibition will be liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, or if convicted on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or both. Section 31 of the Child Care Act 1991 contains a similar prohibition in relation to child care cases.
I am satisfied that these provisions are sufficiently robust and that there is no need at the present time for a further review of the in camera rule in family law cases.
