Camilla Cavendish: what has changed | The first article in our campaign | From a nosebleed to care | Case studies: families ruined

The secrecy of the family courts – in which nearly 95,000 cases are heard in private each year – is to end under reforms announced yesterday that will allow the media access to all levels of the system. The move could mean that social workers and expert witnesses who fail children, and now enjoy the protection of anonymity, will in future be named publicly when criticised by judges.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that from April the media would be permitted access to all family cases in all courts – from celebrity divorces to hearings over domestic violence or children being removed from families.

“A really important veil is being lifted on what happens in these courts,” he said.

Crucially, media reporting of the cases will be subject to tight restrictions to protect the welfare and privacy of the children and families involved. The people involved in such cases will also be able to apply to a judge to have the media excluded.

Mr Straw indicated that judges were not expected to grant such requests often and, when they did, the cases would be closely monitored. “If it is not working, we will actively consider changes or primary legislation.”

The moves follow a campaign by The Times, begun this year, to reform the family justice system and open up the courts amid accusations that they are operating under a “conspiracy of silence”.

Mr Straw said yesterday: “My view is that public confidence depends crucially on the system being as open as possible – so the case for restrictions has to be a very strong one.”

As for the anonymity given to professionals such as social workers and expert witnesses, he indicated that his view, although the change is not finalised, was that this should be removed. Professional experts such as structural engineers whose competence is questioned – perhaps because someone has been injured – have no anonymity protection.

“I see no reason why other professionals should be immune from public examination unless there are overwhelming arguments in an individual case,” Mr Straw said.

He said that the long-awaited measures, which have been more than two years in consultation and revision, struck a balance between openness and the need to protect the privacy of children and vulnerable adults. Ministers would also consider how adoption proceedings could be opened up.

The change is partly in response to pressure from the media and fathers’ groups to open the family courts so that justice can be seen to be done.

Britain’s most senior family judge, Sir Mark Potter, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, welcomed the announcement but said that judicial discretion to exclude the media should be used where necessary. “I have for some time made clear the support of the senior judiciary for media access to the family courts in the interests of transparency and public confidence in the family justice system,” he said.

But he criticised Mr Straw’s proposal to review the question of whether privacy should remain the rule for adoption proceedings. He said that the judiciary was united in opposing that.

The Family Justice Council, a forum of lawyers and other users of the family courts, condemned the change and said that it was “disappointed to learn that the Government is planning to allow the media into family courts as of right. In doing so, they have disregarded the views of children, young people and the organisations which protect, support and represent them.”

At present the media is allowed access only to the Court of Appeal and magistrates’ family proceedings courts.

In the dark

— A couple whose baby daughter was placed in foster care this year were refused information by the authorities on the ground of confidentiality. Tim Yeo, the couple’s MP in Suffolk South, said that his efforts to help the couple had been thwarted by a system that “prevents natural justice”

— Matthew, a professional in his fifties, was fighting a custody case for several months before he became aware of damaging allegations against him on his court file. A supporter of his former partner had written to the judge, making spurious claims, including one that said Matthew was not to be trusted with his children. Matthew only became aware of the allegations when he requested other correspondence from his file

— A month before Curtis, 17, was born, his sister was placed in foster care and then adopted, after social services expressed concern about a bruise on the child. He was only reunited recently with his sister after she tracked down her family. He found that social services had also tried to place him in foster care despite no evidence against his mother

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure