Now I sense, locally at least, no significant judicial antipathy towards transparency. Maybe we will no longer hear that we are part of a conspiracy to steal children and sell them for adoption. Let us praise transparency for that at least.
There were, of course, teething problems. Judges were anxious about the time arguments about transparency would take in busy court lists, particularly if the case was one of many (a transparency argument normally delays the case by 15-20 minutes).
Advocates were unprepared for the robust support of transparency in the pilot courts and were still seeking to oppose orders on their clients’ instructions, including on behalf of the child, without any real consideration of the merits and sometimes without any coherent case to make.
Reporters were unfamiliar with the court processes and sometimes strayed beyond what was proper process. For example, one reporter entered into significant email correspondence with the court about obtaining a transcript of the judgment, which he had attended, even though the obtaining of the transcript was not the function of the court. The tail cannot, and surely will not, wag the dog.
Source link