Sentences with phrase «media access to the courts»

Media access to these court documents has prompted national attention including front page coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

In order to evaluate whether the guidelines should be amended or expanded and what other initiatives the committee might wish to pursue, the committee is asking members of the news media to complete a survey on media access to the courts.

The views of children and those working with children have been taken seriously: - No longer is it proposed to allow the media access to the courts as of right.

Not exact matches

The evangelical - moralist sector has gained access to the White House, the Supreme Court, the Congress; it has a near - monopoly on mass media religion news, popular religion, the production of religious celebrities; it makes clear its positions on what it calls social issues, and is engaged in calling for constitutional amendments and new laws and in protests in the public squares.

In a letter signed by news organizations that represent national and regional media concerns, the bill is touted as a measure that can boost access to records after a prolonged court battle.

According to him, only a handful who goes about with Senator Sherrif has access to the media, the court and may be the police.

«Dominic Ayine, the Deputy Minister for Justice who represented the Government in the Supreme Court and opposed my application, and others, went public with the electronic and print media to mount unconstitutional and contumacious attacks and insults on the Court decision and on my person for daring to access the Court.»

Notably, when the reporters were asked the one thing they would most want to change about the litigation process, over 70 percent said they would make it easier for the news media to access court documents.

I clicked on the «Settled Principles» tab to find 30 well - settled principles for public records, such as this statement from a California appellate decision, «[I] t is well established that the media has no greater right of access to public records than the general public,» and this from a Florida court, «It is well - settled that public records and reports or business records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule provided they are authenticated by a custodian.»

The Judiciary / Media Committee of the Supreme Judicial Court is considering revisions to the Guidelines on the Public's Right of Access to Judicial Proceedings and Records.

In June 1966, writing for an 8 - 1 majority, Justice Tom Clark detailed the barrage of «virulent and incriminating» media coverage of the Sheppard investigation and excoriated the failure of the trial court to control media access to jurors.

The media and public are being given access to Court of Protection hearings under a new six - month pilot scheme.

As part of the sentences for David and Collet Stephan — whose infant son died of meningitis due to their failure to access medical care for him when he fell ill — the Alberta court required that notice of the sentence be posted on Prayers for Ezekiel and any other social media sites maintained by and dealing with the subject of their family.

Today Ontario Superior Court Justice David McCombs made his final ruling allowing all media — television and internet alike — access to a tape of an interview with Paul Bernardo.

Again via Courthouse Libraries BC, I see the CBABC issued a media release on the ruling: Court Ruling a «Win» for Equality and Access to Justice

We find interesting stories and court cases from Washington state and other places about the Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings Act, access - to - court rulings, and media law.»

At around that same time, the Massachusetts court system suddenly imposed a restriction on attorney and news media access to electronic court records, barring anyone from viewing criminal records online except for attorneys who have entered an appearance in a case.

* The media was not pushing for access and seemed content to come to the court or to ask Ottawa agents for copies of documents.

In a video just shy of three minutes, which appears to have been home - produced on a Mac, Goldstein subtly conveys that (1) he has direct access to, and is on a first name basis with, Supreme Court luminaries like Laurence Tribe and Solicitor General Paul Clement; (2) he's a go - to resource for media folks like Nina Totenberg and (3) he can (and does) respond to inquiries within seconds, using data that he carries, quite literally, in the palm of his hand.

Documents enter the courtroom via physical media, like laptop hard disks and USB memory sticks (a document scanner lets lawyers put hard - copy documents on the screens), since wireless Internet access isn't yet available and the court doesn't (yet) allow usage of its servers to store documents.

An order that limits publication of certain information for a fixed time period, while permitting full access to the material or the relevant proceeding, has a less deleterious effect on the open court principle, and associated individual rights, than does an order that effectively locks the courtroom door to the media and the public.

Through a series of meetings and presentations, we will share perspectives on libel and defamation law, media access to judges and court proceedings, media coverage of court proceedings and other issues of common interest.

Specifically, courts are recognizing the ethical implications of an attorney who seeks access to information located on an unrepresented witness's social media profile.

Reporters seldom take the time to cover the courts adequately even though media outlets of years ago fought to gain access to judicial forums.

Access to them may actually be sold to the media — perhaps even the public directly over the Internet as courts seek to use technology to provide badly - needed revenues.

It covers key areas of media and access law: access to courts, copyright and trademark, censorship, Internet regulation, invasion of privacy, libel, newsgathering, open records and meetings, and sources and subpoenas.

What next for media access to the family courts?

The media already has access to the family courts.

Common challenges include: legal education reform and preparing lawyers for a future that is already here; solving access to justice; defending the rule of law; creating appropriate guidelines for social media, ensuring that its role in the court of public opinion does not marginalize the legal system; and narrowing the delta between current legal delivery methods and customer needs and expectations.

No. 18030 / 11, European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber Junior to Richard Clayton QC; the Grand Chamber revisited contradictory authority to recognise, in part, a right of access to information under Article 10 EHCR (instructed by various NGO Interveners, including the Media Legal Defence Initiative, the Campaign for Freedom of Information and Article 19)

Special considerations must apply to family proceedings due to their sensitive nature; hence the Family Procedure Rules 2010 include provisions dealing with media access to the family courts.

Both solutions will occur because the power of the news media and of the internet, interacting, will quickly make widely known these types of information, the cumulative effect of which will force governments and the courts to act: (1) the situations of the thousands of people whose lives have been ruined because they could not obtain the help of a lawyer; (2) the statistics as to the increasing percentages of litigants who are unrepresented and clogging the courts, causing judges to provide more public warnings; (3) the large fees that some lawyers charge; (4) increasing numbers of people being denied Legal Aid and court - appointed lawyers; (5) the many years that law societies have been unsuccessful in coping with this problem which continues to grow worse; (6) people prosecuted for «the unauthorized practice of law» because they tried to help others desperately in need of a lawyer whom they couldn't afford to hire; (7) that there is no truly effective advertising creating competition among law firms that could cause them to lower their fees; (8) that law societies are too comfortably protected by their monopoly over the provision of legal services, which is why they might block the expansion of the paralegal profession, and haven't effectively innovated with electronic technology and new infrastructure so as to be able to solve this problem; (9) that when members of the public access the law society website they don't see any reference to the problem that can assure them that something effective is being done and, (10) in order for the rule of law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the whole of Canada's constitution be able to operate effectively and command sufficient respect, the majority of the population must be able to obtain a lawyer at reasonable cost.

The family courts will come under closer scrutiny from 27 April, when accredited media are to be allowed access to family court hearings in county courts and the High Court, subject to Parliamentary apprcourt hearings in county courts and the High Court, subject to Parliamentary apprCourt, subject to Parliamentary approval.

Technology, new delivery models, and a reboot of legal culture will enable the legal industry to tackle law's big problems: access to justice, the defense of democracy, and ensuring that social media's impact on the «court of public opinion» does not undermine the rule of law.

Child law specialist Peter Garsden, of Abneys, says the media should have more access to the family courts but under tightly controlled circumstances.

Faster, more open and affordable access to court records and proceedings will help the public and the media be full witnesses to the administration of justice.»

Geraldine Morris outlines the recent rule changes arising from granting media access to family courts

In terms of openness, the media obviously has a critical role to play and has argued that it should have unfettered access to the family courts as a watchdog or «proxy for the public».

Government proposals to allow increased media access to family courts provoked consternation, and rightly so, says Eleanor Harris

Based on analysis [i] of social media engagement with CanLII (a free - to - access legal information site containing nearly 1.3 million court and tribunal judgments, statutes and regulations), the answer appears to be... sort of.

It is also interesting to note that research carried out by Dr Julia Brophy at Oxford University, Openness and Transparency in Family Courts: Messages from other Jurisdictions, found that in countries where there is more media access, such as Australia, there is no evidence of greater public understanding of the process.

In a sign of the pervasiveness of social media, the Supreme Court is poised to decide whether the state (in this case, under the ambit of restrictions on sex offenders) may prohibit access to social media platforms.

Russia's media watchdog has blocked access to a few bitcoin - related sites, citing a court order from 30th September.

On campuses and online, in statehouses and courts, in local communities, and in the media, Planned Parenthood is an outspoken, passionate advocate for policies that enable all people to access comprehensive reproductive and sexual health care, education, and information.

On campuses and online, in statehouses and courts, in community settings, and in the media, Planned Parenthood is a visible and passionate advocate for policies that enable Californians to access comprehensive reproductive health care and sexual health education.