Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

Statement by Mr Justice Peter Jackson: Poppi Worthington - reasons for the current reporting restrictions

Sep 29, 2018, 20:04 PM
family law, reporting restrictions, transparency, Poppi Worthington, [2014] EWHC 2596 (Fam)
I am making this statement to explain why I have made a limited reporting restriction order in the course of family proceedings relating to the siblings of Poppi Worthington, and why I have not at this stage published a judgment given in March 2014 at the end of a fact-finding hearing into the circumstances of her death.
Slug : statement-by-mr-justice-peter-jackson-poppi-worthington-reasons-for-the-current-reporting-restrictions
Meta Title : Statement by Mr Justice Peter Jackson: Poppi Worthington - reasons for the current reporting restrictions
Meta Keywords : family law, reporting restrictions, transparency, Poppi Worthington, [2014] EWHC 2596 (Fam)
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 29, 2014, 08:20 AM
Article ID : 107561
I am making this statement to explain why I have made a limited reporting restriction order in the course of family proceedings relating to the siblings of Poppi Worthington, and why I have not at this stage published a judgment given in March 2014 at the end of a fact-finding hearing into the circumstances of her death.

Poppi Worthington died on 12 December 2012. The inquest into her death was concluded by HM Coroner on 21 October 2014. Some concern has subsequently been expressed about the lack of information that is currently available to the public.

The conduct of an inquest is a matter for HM Coroner, and not for this court. This court’s task is to make appropriate orders in relation to Poppi’s siblings and, where reporting restrictions are proposed, to balance the rights of individuals to protection alongside the interests of the public in freedom of information and the upholding of the criminal law.

Family court proceedings in relation to the surviving children were not started until October 2013. In March 2014, I gave judgment at the end of a substantial fact-finding hearing. My usual practice, consistent with the practice of the Family Court as a whole, is to publish any significant judgment on the internet, in anonymised form where necessary. For the reasons that appear below, I am not yet able to follow the usual practice in this case.

Furthermore, in July 2014, I made a reporting restriction order, after receiving submissions from the parties to the family proceedings and on behalf of most of the main
Later in July, the media organisations applied for sight of my fact-finding judgment. That application was opposed by the local authority and the parents, but supported by the Children’s Guardian. I approved disclosure of the judgment to the lawyers acting for the media organisations on condition of confidentiality, so that they can understand the reasons for the reporting restrictions and keep the position under review. My decision is available on the Bailii website at Cumbria County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 2596 (Fam).

The reasons why I have not published my judgment at this stage and why the specific reporting restrictions are in place are these:

Firstly, as to the publication of the fact-finding judgment. As a result of the judgment, further police investigations into Poppi’s death are now taking place. A decision by the Crown Prosecution Service may then follow. In the interests of justice It is essential that this process is allowed to take place without interference and that any criminal proceedings are not prejudiced.

Secondly, as to the reporting restictions. Poppi’s siblings are very young and they are still fragile following the death of their sister. The plans for their future are presently at a critical stage. If they were identified publicly it would harm them.

The reporting restrictions are not set in stone. They are expressly open to review. So far, no application has been made by anyone to vary their terms, or to seek the publication of the fact-finding judgment, but if an application is made, I will consider it on its merits.

I understand the concern that arises when the circumstances of a child’s death are not made known. Although this is not primarly a task for the family court, I will consider whether the fact-finding judgment can be published as soon as it is possible to do so.

This case raises wider issues. For that reason, the fact-finding judgment was sent at the time it was given to the following agencies:
  • The Chief Executive of
  • The Statutory Lead Member for Children’s Services, Cumbria County Council
  • The Chair of Cumbria County Council’s Scrutiny Advisory Board - Children and Young People 
  • The IRO service manager for
  • Ofsted
  • The Independent Chair of the Cumbria Local Safeguarding Children’s Board 
  • The Department of Education (for the attention of the national panel of independent experts on Serious Case Reviews)
  • The Chief Constable of
  • The Police and Crime Commissioner for
  • The Independent Police Complaints Commission 
  • The Crown Prosecution Service 
  • The Chair of the relevant NHS Foundation Trust
  • The Care Quality Commission
  • HM Coroner 
  • The Chief Coroner for
Categories :
  • News
Tags :
newspaper_3
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from