Transparency: Now can you see why it matters?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2014, operating on the basis that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and fed up of grubby and inaccurate stories about the "secret family court", a group of family lawyers and legal bloggers set up a group called The Transparency Project. Before long we were a charity, whose charitable objectives translate in plain English to "making family justice clearer".  

In the decade (and a bit) that has followed, acceptance of transparency as a good and necessary thing in the family court (and across the justice system) has moved from the box labelled "kooky and dangerous" to being properly mainstream. The perceived threat level has reduced considerably, and hostile responses to the topic of transparency are now the exception rather than the rule.  

That the numbers of reporters attending hearings remains low is now primarily a product of the difficult economic environment in which the mainstream media are operating, rather than as a result of locked doors or a ban on reporting. When journalists come, they are generally permitted to stay, and to report on condition only of anonymity.   

A broader understanding of transparency 

Transparency itself is now understood to encompass not just opening up the courts to the media and legal bloggers, but to a whole host of other ways of doing family justice that make the system more understandable, more insightful, and more accountable:  

• Better data, purposeful gathering of feedback from children and families, the much-improved quality and depth of media reporting, and publication of judgments – both those which set precedent and those which simply illustrate the sort of cases that are dealt with daily in the privacy of the family court 

• A trend for drafting of judgments in simple language, judgments addressed to the parties, letters written directly to children, for children 

• Better awareness of why transparency matters, and increasing appreciation of the legal and constitutional underpinning of it as a legitimate part of any justice system – even one that necessarily operates largely in private 

All of these subtle shifts in culture and practice come together to facilitate informed and sensible public debate and scrutiny – debate not just between professionals but also incorporating the voices and experiences of those who are "done to". They have come together to facilitate a far less myopic, defensive appreciation of how well – or how poorly – family justice is operating, how it feels to be a parent, child or victim of harm living the process, where it is letting families down or causing harm, and how things might be adjusted to give families better experiences and outcomes.  

A driver for change 

The single most obvious area which has been positively impacted by all this publication and public debate is in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse: here practice has evolved beyond recognition in the last 5 years or so. A material contributor in those changes and greater understanding has been the public debate, the public pressure and the family court finally listening – all facilitated by transparency and media reporting.  

That cycle of change continues and can be seen too in the approach to parental alienation and the instruction of experts. It can be seen in an increasing number of extraordinary "ordinary" judgments, showcasing judicial understanding and acknowledgment of the pernicious effect of domestic abuse in all its forms including the drip, drip, corrosive, paralysing effect of coercive and controlling behaviour on both the adult victim and the child victim living in the same household, of the effect of trauma on recall and demeanour, of why there is no perfect victim and of how abuse can continue in different forms after separation and through the court process.  

Those judgments show other judges and lawyers how it can be done and how it should be done, they show victims what is possible and they have begun to expose and break down the culture of "contact at all costs". This process of change is not always a comfortable experience for family justice professionals, but the family justice system is better for it. 

Trust and confidence 

The work of maintaining – and restoring – public trust and confidence in the family justice system is like painting the Forth Bridge: never complete. There will always be those who are unhappy with it. But what should be increasingly apparent as the curtain has been pulled back to show the world the difficult, traumatic work that family court professionals are doing day in, day out, is how much the system and the professionals who sustain it are under pressure.  

The legal aid Bar is beginning to realise that transparency also represents an opportunity to show how critical their contribution is to the system, what they are having to contend with in the modern family court, why the current legal aid fees are scandalously low, and why the legal aid fee schemes are not fit for purpose. The fees paid to the family legal aid Bar are now worth less than half in real terms than they were the last time even an inflationary pay rise was given to them (30 years ago). The nature and volume of work has changed beyond all recognition with the digital revolution. Some areas of work are unsustainable for solicitors, and so legal aid deserts are spreading.  

The creaking system depends on the Bar continuing to mop up work that solicitors and judges no longer undertake, usually without any means of payment under a legal aid framework which was designed before the explosion in bundle size and digital download material which came with the emergence of the smartphone and paperless working.  

Invisible hands, invisible cracks 

All these things are poorly understood by the public and ignored by successive governments. But the low morale, anger and exasperation of those of us left is going to become increasingly visible and impossible to ignore for every month that goes by without proper recognition of how unsustainable it all is, and without proper remuneration for the work we do. Calls for more efficiency inevitably translate into more work for less pay for the Bar. Sensible junior barristers are avoiding all this and making exit plans. Those who are left cannot absorb any more. 

Here too, transparency has potential to be the agent of positive change that makes visible the cracks in the family justice system and the largely unseen work of the family legal aid Bar to hold it together with paper, string and the last dregs of goodwill. If, in response to demands for change, the hackneyed myth of the fat cat legal aid barrister emerges, it can be exposed for just that – thanks to transparency. 

Hear more from Lucy during our panel "Sunlight on the system: what next for open justice?" at Bar Conference 2026.