Little Children

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:38:08 EST

Against my better judgment, mydaughter persuaded me to watch a film entitled Little Children the other night. It starred the morose Kate Winslett, bucking for another Oscar andrapidly turning into the poor man’s Meryl Streep, together with an utterlyforgettable supporting cast.

Basically, it’s a film set in LittleTown America,where prejudices are as hard as granite, and into their midst is released apaedophile convicted of indecent exposure towards a minor, so hardly the crimeof the century. LTA is on red alert,exacerbated by a self styled vigilante, who patrols the streets handing outleaflets and shouting from the rooftops. The film ends with the paedophile’s mother dying whilst trying toprotect him from this concerted campaign of vilification, and he committing agross act of self mutilation in the town park. All very gory and not suitable for family viewing.

I suppose the author’s messagewas that the paedophile was never given a chance to integrate into life in LTA,and was persecuted out of all proportion to his crime and the threat he mighthave posed. The oxygen of publicity allbut suffocated him.

Which brings me seamlessly on tothe modest reforms announced by the Ministry of Justice last year, and due tocome into effect on the 27^th April. In short, family courts are to be opened to the public, and by that, Imean the media, as the public, for the most part, are not remotely interestedin watching dirty linen being washed in the full glare of publicity. But the ‘crusaders’ in favour of open courtshave been told that judges will have the right to prevent reporting in certaincases, and to exclude the public and the media if they deem it necessary in theinterests of justice.

The Times newspaper was at theforefront of this crusade, giving an inordinate amount of coverage to the viewsof one Camilla Cavendish, about whom I know nothing. The received wisdom from The Timescommentators is that these reforms are likely to be still born if judges havetheir way, and CC and her camp followers have climbed back into the pulpit.

The Media, by definition, reportthe sensational and especially the prurient for mass consumption. If it isn’t sensational, they make it so, asthis sells copies. But the Media arealso slow to correct factual errors, witness their correction columns buried inthe inside pages, where brevity is their watchword. Give a dog a bad name and hang it can soeasily become reality, and where families are concerned, where raw emotions arenever far from the surface, and with children being used as bargaining chips inbitter disputes between parents, the oxygen of publicity can indeed besuffocating.

Leave aside the real risk thatwith the media present, the truth will be concealed, or at least glossed over,how can families at war be helped if they are looking over their shoulders allthe time, watching some news hound scribbling away, knowing that their everyword may be reported and distorted?

In these days of globalcommunications and hot press wires, Darren and Sharon squabbling over Kylie andWayne can make for good headlines, especially if there are allegations ofabuse, with all the trimmings. A quietday in Fleet Street can turn a routine family case into a multimedia circus anddo untold damage.

Finally, it is worth rememberingthat family cases often involve several hearings, especially if custody of the childrenis in issue. There will be reports fromSocial Services, Court appointed officers, the children will have their ownguardian, possibly paediatricians, psychologists and psychiatrists, to ensurethat no stone is left unturned in the best interests of the children. And the likelihood is that the media willbecome bored after the parties’ opening position statements, and so, severalmonths later when the case concludes, the media will have exhausted theirfeeding frenzy and moved on. And whatremains? Graphic headlines pilloryingone party or another will never be corrected, and those pilloried will have tolive with the stigma that was patently untrue and never of their making.

So I applaud the restrictionsplaced on open access to family courts. Presumably the media will have the same rights to challenge an exclusionorder or a reporting restriction as they do routinely under the Contempt ofCourt Act 1984. It should be all aboutfairness. There is no room in the familycourts for sensationalism, and long may it remain.

TRCB.com RSS Feed

Little Children