Jack Straw has been accused of a confidence trick over plans to open the family courts to the media.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, has warned that although the Justice Secretary’s new rules will allow the media to attend family court proceedings for the first time, reports cannot be published without the judge’s permission.

The media, groups campaigning for justice for families and the English public had each been taken in, he said. “Whether it is by Jack Straw or by forces of reaction in the judiciary – we have all been hoodwinked.”

The reforms will take effect from April 27 under rules that have just been published. Mr Hemming, who, with The Times, has been in the forefront of the campaign to open the family courts, said that the reforms brought some benefits, in that parents or children could tell journalists or their MP about court proceedings, but he added: “It remains that publication can only happen with the permission of the judge.”

In an interview with The Times in December, Mr Straw appeared to imply that the media would be allowed to report on cases as long as they did not name the parties or publish their personal details. “It will be open to parties to apply to court for specific reporting restrictions. But my hope is that the courts are reluctant to grant these,” he said.

Last month a senior family judge said that the media would continue to be denied the ability to report on the detail of cases. Sir Andrew McFarlane, a High Court judge, said that only reports of the “gist of proceedings rather than the detail of an individual case” would be allowed. The present reporting regime would remain in place and would be “unamended to accommodate the insertion of the media into the courtroom”, he said.

Sir Andrew added that the Government was not intending to ease restrictions to “give the green light to the reporting of human interest stories”. Because of the need to protect the identity of children, he said, the media would “face tough sanctions” if they reported the detail of any case. “The reporting will be about the system, rather than substance.”

Sir Andrew, a family judge who made his comments to a conference

held by Resolution, the family lawyers’ association, said that the changes would help to prevent ill-informed and inaccurate reporting. But he concluded: “The brave new world postApril . . . seems to be far more sophisticated and restricted than may at first sight have been understood by some journalists, the public at large and, for that matter, the legal profession.”

Announcing the reforms in December, Mr Straw stated that courts would retain powers to restrict attendance and what could be reported.

Sir Andrew said that journalists would face difficulties when confronted with a parent complaining about a miscarriage of justice. “Under the new scheme, the journalist is in no better position than they are now to evaluate the validity of the complaints that they are hearing.” He also said that when care and criminal proceedings were being held in parallel, a journalist would be unable to “report any of the substance of the care proceedings other than possibly the outcome, once the proceedings have fully concluded”. In a case involving serious injury or death, such as the Baby P hearing, the journalist who was privy to the case would not be able to report any detail.

Mr Straw strongly denied any intention to mislead. He said that the intention was to legislateto rationalise reporting restrictions but it would take primary legislation. He said: “It is nonsense for anyone to suggest that there has been any dubiety in the Government’s position. Time and again I have said that we will bring the current highly restrictive rules against reporting in respect of the High Court and county courts into line with the rules for family proceedings courts.

“Alongside the formal changes to the court rules, I have also wanted to ensure a change in the culture and practice of all courts – the High Court, county courts, and magistrates’ courts – towards greater openness, and I am confident that the overall effect of these changes will be to achieve that.”

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