Judges' gowns are to make a comeback in the Family Court after its principal judge called for a change to help the court to be taken more seriously.
Family Court judges and lawyers are currently forbidden by law from wearing either gowns or wigs "to prevent unnecessary formality".
However, a bill introduced to Parliament yesterday will allow judges to wear gowns.
Principal Judge Peter Boshier said he asked for a return of the gowns to raise the gravitas of the court in the public's eye.
"I felt the Family Court ought to be seen by the public as a court that makes decisions that should be respected.
"We have suffered a little bit in the past from some people who have not taken Family Court decisions as seriously as they otherwise would have.
"So the introduction of the gowns is symbolic but important. It shows the court is a mainstream court whose decisions should be viewed no differently from any other court."
Under the pending law change, judges may wear gowns but cannot wear wigs, and lawyers remain forbidden from wearing either gowns or wigs.
The main changes in the Family Court Matters Bill is to open a wider range of its hearings to public scrutiny by allowing the media to sit in on more cases - including adoption, care and protection, and domestic violence ones. News services will also be able to publish reports on mental-health-related cases, but not attend hearings.
The Family Court was first opened to the media in 2005, when they were permitted to sit in on a restricted range of care and guardianship cases.
The new Family Court Matters Bill will also allow support people for those involved in the hearing to attend if the judge agrees.
Court reports of proceedings can also be published, but court permission is needed to use information which might identify people in cases involving "vulnerable persons or children".
Fines of $2000 for an individual or $10,000 for a corporate body apply to anyone in breach.
Judge Boshier said opening up more court proceedings should result in more objective reporting of cases because the media would not be left to rely solely on what they were told by the people involved.
