England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

		18 December 2014

JUDGMENT : Reporting Restrictions and Publication (No 3)

Mr Justice Peter Jackson:

1. On 11 July 2014, I made a Reporting Restriction Order in this case. The media has now made further written submissions about the scope of the order following the conclusion of the Coroner's inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington. Responses have been filed by the parties. The quality and detail of the submissions makes it unnecessary to hold an oral hearing.
2. Certain specific amendments to the existing order are proposed.
3. The order currently prevents reference to the town of Barrow or to Furness General Hospital. The mother and children have left the area and I do not consider that they are likely to be more easily identifiable if this information is published. Paragraphs 3(d) and (h) of the order will be deleted.
4. The door-stepping provision at paragraph 5 of the order will remain in place with the substitution of the words "any representatives of the media" for "any person". This will protect the mother and children from media intrusion but not from ordinary day-to-day interactions.
5. I approve the addition of paragraph 9, which provides for notification to be given to the media, in the fully amended version found in the draft dated 27 November. The breadth of the notification requirement is reasonable in the circumstances. The period within which the media is to be notified will be three working days. I will also add paragraph 10 as suggested by the local authority; it clarifies and is not just verbiage.
6. I refuse the informally presented request on behalf of Paul Worthington to be granted anonymity. I ruled on this on 11 July, since then he has been publicly named. It is neither right in principle nor practicable for him to be granted anonymity now.
7. In principle, I agree to the publication on Bailii of my ruling of 11 July. The parties should submit an edited draft that (i) follows the scheme of the reporting restriction order in preserving anonymity and (ii) removes any reference to my findings of fact.
8. Consistent with that scheme, I refuse the application for publication of my fact-finding judgment at this stage. The situation is unchanged since the public statement of 27 October. However, I make these directions:

(1) I will list this matter for hearing on 30 March 2015 for reconsideration of whether the fact-finding judgment should be published. By then, a year will have passed from the date of the hearing, the children's position may be more settled and a sufficient period will have been allowed for a decision to be taken about whether criminal charges are to be brought.

(2) Any position statements on this issue should be exchanged not less than a week before the hearing.

(3) I direct the local authority to send this judgment and the amended Reporting Restriction Order to Cumbria Constabulary and to the Crown Prosecution Service. If either of them wishes to be heard on the question of publication of the fact-finding judgment, they should attend the hearing in March.

(4) I relax the undertaking given by the media lawyers to allow them to obtain legal advice in relation to any challenge to the conduct of the Coroner's inquest.

(5) If proceedings regarding the conduct of the inquest are issued, I will consider any submissions about the use to which the fact-finding judgment might be put. It is premature to consider that at this stage.

9. The parties will please agree the necessary revisions to the Reporting Restriction Order and submit an accompanying Explanatory Note, together with the edited version of the 11 July ruling. These should be sent to my clerk by 7 January.
10. This ruling and the revised 11 July ruling will be handed down and published on the Bailii website on 14 January 2015.