These days we are all far too familiar with the term ‘fake news’, but it seems the latest wave has stemmed from celebrity divorces, tabloid newspapers and ‘divorce season’.
Most recently, the Redknapp divorce has seen tabloid newspapers explode in outrage at the Court ‘blocking’ the release of papers which they have implied would normally have been in the public domain. However, it is a long standing rule that the press, or anyone else who is not party to the proceedings, is not entitled to see any papers, subject to a few exceptions. So, given these exceptions, let’s see what the Judge could possibly have ‘blocked’ the press from seeing…
There are three documents which are made public in undefended divorces like that of the Redknapp’s, they are:
Certificate of entitlement to Decree – this has already been published by the Daily Mail so has clearly not been blocked
The Decree – this has not been obtained yet
Any evidence filed under rule 7.19(4) – could this be the gossip ridden document the press are so eager to get their hands on?
Unfortunately, for tabloids and gossip mags, the evidence filed under rule 7.19(4) is the ‘D80’ form. This form contains no details of the unreasonable behaviour that has been relied upon to file the divorce, and does very little but confirm that the Petitioner would not like to add anything to the divorce papers following their spouse having received and returned them. Hardly front page news…
So, unless the press are outraged about not being able to lay their eyes on the ever so exciting D80 form, they must have misunderstood the process somewhere else.
It is true that if the divorce had been defended then the papers involved in the proceedings are technically in the public domain. However, this is subject to a major caveat, that these papers are not to be used for any other purpose, i.e. selling newspapers. Therefore, even if Jamie Redknapp had defended his divorce, a very uncommon move, and the papers had been public they would still have been prevented from being published by default, without the interference of a Judge. Perhaps this is where the unfounded outrage of the Sun and the Daily Mail stems from.
It’s clear that the press are not entitled to anything that they haven’t already got in relation to the Redknapp divorce, and that there has been no great affront to the principle of open justice as the papers would have you believe. However, it is worth pointing out that even if the press had been entitled to see Louise Redknapp’s divorce petition and a Judge had made the decision to prevent this, it would be very hard to argue that this was detrimental to anyone other than the papers who couldn’t run the story.
It is hardly in the public interest that the behaviour, which a petitioner personally found to be unreasonable, is published, and it is definitely not in the best interests of any children. The public might be interested in knowing what reasons Louise gave for divorcing Jamie, maybe it was the curse of Strictly again, but is this sufficient justification for such an invasion of privacy which could cause a seemingly amicable separation to turn sour? Whilst the Redknapps have no doubt benefitted from their fame and their celebrity status, are there not some things which everyone deserves to have kept private?