Open Courts
In Australia, courts and their decisions are usually open to the public (Family Court of Australia 2006). Behind this is the principle of open justice (Johnston 2016). According to it, the legal system, and the system of justice in particular, should be open to the public to ensure that the processes taking place inside these systems are transparent, and to permit for public control. Public control is an integral part of the democratic society (Johnston 2016), for it allows the public to put pressure on the state authorities in case of injustice, so that these authorities take steps to prevent such injustice from occurring in the future. In this case, state authorities will be interested in preventing similar adverse situations in the future because they want to be re-elected into the office; but there needs to be a way for such adverse situations to become publicly known. Therefore, the principle of open justice is one of the critical components of democratic society.
It should be added that representatives of the public rarely visit court proceedings in practice, but in certain important cases, the media may translate the information about problems in courts to the public, thus allowing for the public control (Johnston 2016).
Courts That Are Held In Camera
Despite the need to uphold the principle of the open justice, some courts are held in camera, that is, they are not open to the public (Jaconelli 2002). They often take place in the judge’s chambers; the judge also reviews the existing evidence and decides which information can be made public and which information cannot. Courts in camera are needed when the cases involve such sensitive information that it is undesirable to reveal it to the public; this may include the matters of national security, sensitive personal information that may harm someone, sensitive information pertaining to commerce (e.g. trade secrets), etc.
It is assumed that revealing some information pertaining to national security may compromise such security and harm national interests (although such position can clearly be debated), which is why processes involving the national security are usually held in camera. As for trade secrets, it seems clear that revealing some secrets of a business may harm that business, taking away its unique advantage, which is why some of this information may also be kept private. Finally, revealing sensitive personal information might harm an individual, which is why such information may also not be made public (Jaconelli 2002).
The Guiding Legislative Act and the Court’s Jurisdiction
The guiding legislative act for the given court process was The Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth), which is the key law pertaining to situations related to the marriage, breakdown of a relationship, partner maintenance, and to the problems related to looking after children (Family Court of Australia 2016c).
The jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia includes the power to make decisions about cases pertaining to divorce and parenting issues, to the division of property after divorce, to child care and guardianship, to family violence, and also to financial cases involving several parties, including corporate institutions (Family Court of Australia 2016a).
The Area of Law Describing the Case and a Legislative Act Relevant to the Case
The current case belongs to the area of family law (Family Court of Australia 2016b). A legislative act relevant to the case is The Family Law Act 1975, for instance, its section 61DA, which states that the best interests of the child must be considered when making court decisions in such cases (Australasian Legal Information Institute n.d.).
Two Key Participants
Judge: the official who oversees the court case, decides the validity of the presented documents and evidence, and makes the final decision about the case. The judge wore a black robe with a red sash, but no wig. Robes and wigs are traditional apparel of judges, and wigs are considered to maintain a degree of anonymity; however, nowadays it may be allowed not to wear a wig, due to their old-fashioned and probably irrelevant look (Victoria Law Foundation 2010). The judge used formal language (“I would like to know the veracity of your health claim”); however, while talking to the mother on the phone, her language was slightly less formal. The judge listened to the barristers and independent lawyers, controlled the whole case, and made the final decision.
Independent children’s lawyer (ICL): a lawyer representing the interests of the child, appointed by the court (Family Court of Australia 2016b). ICL wore a bar jacket, a jabot and a black gown with the money bag at the back, as per the tradition (Victoria Law Foundation 2010); ICL also had no wig. The language was mostly formal (“Do I understand that your honour is releasing…”), but sometimes less formal phrases were utilised. ICL reviewed evidence such as the experts’ family report and attempted to understand what would be in the interest of the child.
Two Protocols / Customary Practices
- The lawyers do not give evidence directly to the judge; evidence is passed to the judge by the court officer.
- The barrister, when disagreeing with the judge, addresses the judge by saying “With respect, your honour, I disagree with…”
Two Support Services
- Legal aid service (Victoria Legal Aid n.d.).
- Family relationship advice line (Parenting and Caring Together program) (Australian Government 2015).
The Assistance Provided by the Two Support Services
- Legal aid service: a government service which assists individuals with legal problems pertaining to family and child matters, criminal issues, social security, and some other issues, providing advocacy and legal advice (Victoria Legal Aid n.d.).
- Parenting and Caring Together program, which includes a Family Relationship Advice Line. This service is aimed at enhancing outcomes for kids from separated families whose members undergo serious conflicts; the service supplies education to family members, as well as therapeutic interventions (Australian Government 2015).
Two Court-Related Roles That Social Workers Perform for Clients
- Social workers, along with psychologists, may serve as family consultants (Family Court of Australia 2013). Family consultants may aid the parties involved in a family court case with resolving the dispute; help and provide recommendations for the court by supplying evidence; create an official report about a family; and consult the court on the matters of services which are supplied for families by the community, governmental structures, etc. (Family Court of Australia 2013). Seeing a family consultant is obligatory for the sides of the conflict, if a family consultant was assigned to the case; all communication with this specialist is non-confidential and may be utilised in the court (Family Court of Australia 2013).
- Social workers helping families may participate in courts; it is stated that two main spheres in which they can provide assistance exist (Pemberton 2012). The first area pertains to writing a formal report which supplies recommendations for the court, whereas the second one involves attending a hearing and providing living evidence during that hearing (Pemberton 2012).
A Societal Issue Relevant to the Case
A societal issue related to the case in question is the problem of divorce. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016), in 2014, there were 121,197 marriages in Australia, and 46,498 divorces, 21,480 of which involved children; in 2015, these numbers were 113,595, 48,517, and 23,063, respectively. Thus, the problem of divorce involving children is seemingly rather widespread. Consequently, children may suffer from having to grow in a family that is not full, or in a family with stepparents, who may be prejudiced against them. Social workers can help in several ways, for instance, a) by providing counselling services to help people preserve their family or to advise them on how to act to harm children as little as possible, or b) by involving families in parenting or care programs which could assist with child care.
Courtroom Experience
The court experience made me feel tired, scared, confused, and anxious. I visited the court with several friends. Prior to the hearing, during the security check, all our belongings, even pockets, were checked; although justified, it made me feel that I did something wrong by visiting the court. Next, everyone looked serious, unwelcoming, and unfriendly; it seemed as if they wanted to ask what we, students, were doing there. When we attempted to ask the lawyer about the cases, he simply pointed to several courtrooms and said two words: “money” and “children”; his unwelcoming, annoyed look dissuaded us from asking any further questions.
When we entered the room where the hearing would take place, there was only a clerk, who also looked austere; he asked us about which university we were from, and notified us that the hearing would not start in the next half an hour. He also informed us that we were forbidden to write down any personal details; it appeared that he believed we were bound to do something inappropriate.
During the hearing itself, there were also numerous discomforting issues. The judge looked self-confident, haughty and austere. Both she and the barristers used very formal English and utilised numerous legal terms; in addition, the barristers spoke very quickly and only faced the judge, so the rest of the room could not hear them. This prevented me from clearly understanding the details of the case. In addition, because the mother of the family, who was the respondent in the case, was in the emergency room, she could not be present in the courtroom and spoke with the judge via the phone with speakers. It was difficult to understand what she was saying; even the judge could not hear everything clearly.
Therefore, this courtroom experience was extremely unpleasant, and made me feel very anxious. The unwelcoming, austere atmosphere, the haughty attitude of the court officials, and the use of formal language and legal terminology made the experience of visiting the court extremely discomforting and confusing. It seemed as if everyone wanted that we would never disturb them with our petty matters, and that we would not interfere with their very important business in the future.
Suggested Enhancements
As for the pre-hearing part of the visit, several improvements can be suggested to improve the observers’ experience of gong to the court. First, although it is probably practically difficult to implement, the attitude of the court officials might be changed. Observers should not be viewed as nuisances or deviants who wish to disrupt the court, but rather as a normal part of the court hearing process, even though not many people visit courts to simply observe. Also, to make the case clearer for the observers, a court officer could briefly summarise the case and put it on the wall or give it to the observer; after the hearing, the summary can be removed from the wall or collected from the observers if needed.
As for the hearing itself, it might be recommended to use less formal English, less Latin, and fewer legal terms, to make the speech of the officials clear to the observers and to the parties in the court. The barristers and the judge could also speak clearer, louder, and not only to one another; using a microphone and speaking into it directly could be advised. Another suggestion is to place the audience seat more appropriately, because the barristers only face the judge, making it difficult for observers to hear and understand anything; this interferes with the very ability of observers to observe the case.
Should Courts Be Open to the Public?
In general, the courts should be open to the public, because people, as taxpayers, have the right to know how the legislative branch of the government operates. Visiting court hearing may also be useful for educational purposes–both for personal learning and for institutionalised education of lawyers, psychologists, social workers, etc. Finally, as was previously noted, open courts are an essential part of the democratic society because it permits for the public control of the government.
However, courts should probably not be open to the public in certain cases, for instance, when the disclosure of the information involved might harm the parties in the court, or have an adverse emotional effect on them during the hearing due to the personal nature of information, such as in sexual offence hearings or trials.
Reference List
Australasian Legal Information Institute n.d., Family law act 1975 – sect 61DA. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016, Marriages and divorces, Australia. Web.
Australian Government 2015, Parenting and Caring Together (PaCT) program. Web.
Family Court of Australia 2006, The courts and your privacy. Web.
Family Court of Australia 2013, Family consultants. Web.
Family Court of Australia 2016a, About the court. Web.
Family Court of Australia 2016b, Independent children’s lawyer. Web.
Family Court of Australia 2016c, The Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth). Web.
Jaconelli, J 2002, Open justice: a critique of the public trial, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Johnston, J 2016, Public relations and the public interest, Routledge, New York, NY.
Pemberton, C 2012, What judges expect from social workers in the family courts. Web.
Victoria Law Foundation 2010, Wigs and robes: a lasting tradition. Web.
Victoria Legal Aid n.d., Victoria Legal Aid: helping Victorians with their legal problems. Web.