A view of a sign at Greenwich Magistrates Court is pictured in south-east London, on July 10, 2008. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Magistrates should be stripped of their powers to restrict court reporting

Coverage of our courts is being censored - because magistrates are too quick to impose unnecessary reporting restrictions. In the interests of open justice, this has to stop.


Twelve years ago prison governors asked for magistrates courts to be stripped of their powers of imprisonment.

The prison population had soared to 70,000 and there was no more room - it was a crisis. (The number of people in jail today is 85,902, but relax! We’ve built more prisons to house the highest per capita prison population in Europe.)

Today I would like to propose another curb on magistrates’ powers. They need to be stripped of the ability to interfere with the reporting of the courts, because, to put it bluntly, many of them have not got the first idea of what they are doing.

Courts have various ways in which they can limit the reports that come out of their court. These are separate to the anonymity for victims of sexual offences and children in youth court, which is automatically applied by law and has nothing to do with a court order.

However, all courts - Magistrates, Crown and upwards - are given statutory powers to limit reports in various circumstances.

If a child is involved in an adult case, as a witness for example, they can place a so-called Section 39 order on that child making them anonymous.

If the court feels a detail from the proceedings might prejudice a trial it can make an order postponing reporting of it - a Section 4 order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Or if there are fears for national security, a complete ban can be issued under Section 11 of the 1981 Act.

The problem is that when it comes to interpreting the law concerning open reporting of the courts, magistrates and (sad to say) sometimes judges seem to be acting on a whim.

Recently I have seen the following:

  • A court unlawfully place a Section 39 anonymity order on the children of a woman accused of murder, even though they were not involved in the proceedings in any way and therefore could not in law be the subject of such an order
  • A court consider refusing to allow a sexual offence victim to waive her anonymity, even though in law she could do so and the court had no power to stop her - and to do so would be a violation of her Article 10 right to freedom of speech
  • A magistrate refuse to give her name to reporters covering a case, in contradiction of a ruling made in R v Felixstowe Magistates saying that they must give their names to the media so they can properly and openly report the proceedings
  • A section 39 order placed to anonymise a child who was dead, and who would therefore, obviously, play no part in the proceedings whatsoever

It may be that the magistrates concerned have not been given training in this aspect of the law - although their powers, and the restrictions on them, are very clearly set out in the booklet Reporting Restrictions in the Magistrates Court by the Judicial Studies Board, copies of which should be available in every court, and if not are easily obtained online.

It is also possible that they have received guidance, but are persuaded too easily by lawyers representing a defendant, to make an order which curtails reporting unnecessarily.

Either way these orders can severely hamper the open reporting of the courts and as so often has been stated in the past, justice unreported is no justice at all.

So these powers should be removed from lay magistrates and placed instead in the hands of a district judge or higher, so that proper legal argument can take place.

This would still not be perfect – district judges and those in crown court are capable of making daft orders on occasion, but are generally more open to persuasion otherwise if they can be shown case law or statute contradicting them.

The courts are woefully under-reported these days and they should be making every effort to be more open and accommodating to those who would inform the public of what goes on there. Making unlawful orders that close down coverage does nothing to help.

Show Hide image

No, single men do not have a “right” to reproduce

The World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them – own their bodies.

Last year, Katha Pollitt wrote an article for The Nation in which she asked why the left was simultaneously making progress with equal marriage while falling behind on abortion rights. “The media ,” she wrote, “present marriage equality and reproductive rights as ‘culture war’ issues, as if they somehow went together. But perhaps they’re not as similar as we think.”

She highlighted the ways in which the right can afford to cede ground on marriage equality while continuing to deny females bodily autonomy. She is right to do so. While both reproductive choice and gay rights may be classed as gender issues, each has its own very specific relationship to patriarchy.

A woman’s desire to control her reproductive destiny will always be in direct opposition to patriarchy’s desire to exploit female bodies as a reproductive resource. The social institutions that develop to support the latter – such as marriage – may change, but the exploitation can remain in place.

This has, I think, caused great confusion for those of us who like to see ourselves as progressive. We know that the idealisation of the heterosexual nuclear family, coupled with the demonisation of all relationships seen as “other”, has caused harm to countless individuals. We refuse to define marriage as solely for the purpose of procreation, or to insist that a family unit includes one parent of each sex.

We know we are right in thinking that one cannot challenge patriarchy without fundamentally revising our understanding of family structures. Where we have gone wrong is in assuming that a revision of family structures will, in and of itself, challenge patriarchy. On the contrary, it can accommodate it.

This is why all feminists – and indeed anyone serious about tackling patriarchy at the root – should be deeply concerned about the World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility. Whereas up until now infertility has been defined solely in medical terms (as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of unprotected sex), a revised definition will give each individual “a right to reproduce”.

According to Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this new definition “includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women”:

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.”

It sure is. From now on, even single men who want children – but cannot have them solely because they do not have a female partner to impregnate – will be classed as “infertile”. I hope I’m not the only person to see a problem with this.

I am all in favour of different family structures. I’m especially in favour of those that undermine an age-old institution set up to allow men to claim ownership of women’s reproductive labour and offspring.

I am less enthusiastic about preserving a man’s “right” to reproductive labour regardless of whether or not he has a female partner. The safeguarding of such a right marks not so much an end to patriarchy as the introduction of a new, improved, pick ‘n’ mix, no-strings-attached version.

There is nothing in Adamson’s words to suggest he sees a difference between the position of a reproductively healthy single woman and a reproductively healthy single man. Yet the difference seems obvious to me. A woman can impregnate herself using donor sperm; a man must impregnate another human being using his sperm.

In order to exercise his “right” to reproduce, a man requires the cooperation – or failing that, forced labour – of a female person for the duration of nine months. He requires her to take serious health risks, endure permanent physical side-effects and then to supress any bond she may have developed with the growing foetus. A woman requires none of these things from a sperm donor.

This new definition of infertility effectively enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them: appropriate their labour, exploit their bodies and then claim ownership of any resultant human life.

Already it is being suggested that this new definition may lead to a change in UK surrogacy law. And while some may find it reassuring to see Josephine Quintavalle of the conservative pressure group Comment on Reproductive Ethics complaining about the sidelining of “the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman”, that really isn’t the problem here.

“How long,” asks Quintavalle, “before babies are created and grown on request completely in the lab?” The answer to this is “probably a very long time indeed”. After all, men are hardly on the verge of running out of poor and/or vulnerable women to exploit. As long as there are female people who feel their only remaining resource is a functioning womb, why bother developing complex technology to replace them?

Men do not have a fundamental right to use female bodies, neither for reproduction nor for sex. A man who wants children but has no available partner is no more “infertile” than a man who wants sex but has no available partner is “sexually deprived”.

The WHO’s new definition is symptomatic of men’s ongoing refusal to recognise female boundaries. Our bodies are our own, not a resource to be put at men’s disposal. Until all those who claim to be opposed to patriarchal exploitation recognise this, progress towards gender-based equality will be very one-sided indeed.

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.