info@transparencyproject.org.uk
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project
  • Legal Blogging
  • Posts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • About
  • Who
  • Dictionary
  • Resources
  • Media
  • More search options
Select Page
Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup: February-March 2025

Family Court Reporting Watch Roundup: February-March 2025

by reporting watch team | Mar 29, 2025 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

Welcome to the Roundup, where we correct, clarify and comment on media reports of family law, explain and comment on published family court judgments, and highlight other transparency news.  MEDIA COVERAGE OF FAMILY LAW, TRANSPARENCY etc The BBC reported on The...
Does a reporter have to be in court to read confidential documents?

Does a reporter have to be in court to read confidential documents?

by reporting watch team | Mar 14, 2025 | Cases, Comment, FCReportingWatch

Dale Vince, described on Wikipedia as ‘a British Green energy industrialist, former New Age traveller’ attracts a good deal of publicity whether it’s his political donations, owning a ‘green’ football team, or taking libel actions against publishers who wrongly...
Court of Appeal says judges’ names should not be anonymised

Court of Appeal says judges’ names should not be anonymised

by Paul M | Jan 24, 2025 | Cases, FCReportingWatch, Transparency News

The Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal by journalists Louise Tickle, Hannah Summers and several media organisations against an order made by Mr Justice Williams in December 2024 to keep the identities of Family Court judges anonymous. These judges had...
Court of Appeal says judges’ names should not be anonymised

Sharif judges anonymity: the appeal coverage

by Julie Doughty | Jan 19, 2025 | Analysis, FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging

On 14 and 15 January the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by journalists Louise Tickle, Hannah Summers and several media organisations against an order made by Mr Justice Williams to keep the identities of Family Court judges anonymous. These judges had made historical...
Court of Appeal to consider the idea of the anonymous judge

Court of Appeal to consider the idea of the anonymous judge

by reporting watch team | Jan 2, 2025 | Analysis, Cases, Explanation, FCReportingWatch, Legal blogging, Notorious, Transparency News

In December, following the conviction of Sara Sharif’s father and step-mother for her murder, and her uncle for offences associated with her death, the Family Division of the HIgh Court permitted disclosure of documents and information from three family court...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

Subscribe to our posts

Recent Comments

  • Jolyon Maugham on Censorship by Meta? update on Pringle v Nervo
  • Linda on Sara Sharif -what we now know from the Safeguarding Review
  • Anon on Why doesn’t the family court punish professionals who break the rules?
  • Louisa Biggs on Hair strand testing – pitfalls and limitations
  • Lainie on ‘Oh I’m sorry, did I forget to mention you don’t have to agree to this?’ When social workers forget that interventions under ‘Child in Need’ are voluntary

Search for something in particular

More search options

June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May    
  • Analysis
  • Cases
  • Comment
  • Consultations
  • Court of Protection
  • Dictionary
  • Events
  • Explanation
  • FCReportingWatch
  • FOI
  • Guidance Note
  • Legal blogging
  • Notorious
  • Open Reporting
  • Project
  • Reporting Pilot
  • Resources
  • Transparency News
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized

access to courts data adoption Adoption targets alienation anonymisation Article 8 assisted dying Cafcass care proceedings child protection children's views committal contempt of court correctionrequests court of protection covid CPConf2016 divorce domestic abuse domesticabuse domestic violence Expert Evidence. experts finances financial remedy FLJ forced adoption guidancenote Human Rights Act 1998 IPSO journalist judgments legal aid legalbloggingpilot mckenzie friends misconduct open justice parental alienation pathfinder psychologists publication remotejustice Section 20 agreements social work transparency

  • Facebook
  • X
The Transparency Project, Charity Number 1161471.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.