[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Cumbria County Council v M & Ors [2014] EWHC 4486 (Fam) (11 July 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/4486.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC 4486 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
CARLISLE DISTRICT REGISTRY

		11 July 2014

APPROVED NOTE OF JUDGMENT (Redacted Version): Reporting Restrictions and Disclosure (No 2)

Mr Justice Peter Jackson:

This is a redacted version of an approved note of a judgment given on 11 July 2014. The note was approved on 17 July and this version, redacted in a manner agreed between the parties, was released for publication on 14 January 2015 in conjunction with the revised reporting restriction order of the same date.

1. Although this is a sensitive matter I am going to give my decision and short reasons now - the case having come into a full list today. If it is necessary for any reason, I will amplify what I am about to say. I will invite the parties to create a note of this relatively short judgment and to send that as quickly as possible to the media organisations. At the end of the hearing a revised draft order will be created which I will approve once it has been seen by Ms Norden on their behalf, taking into account any matters she raises that call for further consideration.
2. Cumbria County Council v M & Ors applies for a reporting restriction order that would, as originally drafted, have the effect of anonymising for the next 15 years the names of any of the family members that are concerned in this matter, including the child that died and including any of the agencies concerned in the background history contained in my judgment given on 28 March 2014.
3. That application is in part opposed, and opposed robustly, by eight media organisations representing a wide cross-section of the serious print and broadcast media.  I will come to the details later in this judgment, but essentially they argue that what is being asked for is far too wide and an appropriate form of order can be drawn that infringes the right of the public to know what has taken place to a much lesser extent.
4. It is an unfortunate feature of today's proceedings that none of the parties within the family proceedings has done what they ought to have done in presenting their arguments in a timely fashion.  My order in May allowed for this application to be made and heard as it now is, and the arguments of the parties should have been in hands of the media much sooner than the eve of the hearing, or the morning of hearing, as has happened.  In practice the court is faced with a situation where the legal arguments of the media arrived before those of the parties.  In my view the solution is the process that I have identified, which allows the media the opportunity to have a final word before the order put into effect.
5. The submissions of the parties and of the media set out fully and helpfully the legal framework that applies in this case in making reference to a number of previous instances when orders of this sort considered.  The wellspring of these authorities is Re S (a child) (Identification: Restriction on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593 (HL). The court must balance article 8 and article 10 of the ECHR, giving neither presumptive precedence, and must focus intensely on the facts of this unusual case. I seek to follow that course in reaching my conclusions.  I am not going to extend this short judgment by further reference to the law.
6. The background more fully set out in my judgment is that the case concerns a [redacted] number of children, some being the children of Mr. Worthington.
7. Poppi died on 12 December 2012.  For a very long time - something in the order of a year - the parents have been on bail in respect of her death with no decision yet taken on whether they are to be prosecuted and no date for when that decision will be made.  On 1 August 2014 they are to answer bail again.  In first week of August HM Coroner is to reopen inquest and the hearing will take place either in public or, if he feels able, in private.
8. [Redacted]
9. During the course of my March 2014 judgment I was highly critical of a number of agencies and it is therefore possible, indeed likely, that there will investigations into the conduct of and professional practice of those agencies.
10. In October there will be a final hearing with the realistic options for the children being [redacted]
11. At the beginning of last month in June, the Social Worker and the mother told the children in the best way they could about what happened to Poppi.  That leads to situation where the Children's Guardian rightly describes the children as being very emotionally vulnerable.  It is an almost impossible thing to explain to a child.  The children here were already hurt by Poppi's death even without learning what happened to her.
12. With that probably inadequate summary of the background to the hearing I now turn to the issues.
13. Some are not in dispute between the parties.  The first of these is that there should be no identification of the surviving children, with paragraph 3(a)(i) of the local authority's draft order being expanded to include past and future addresses, and schools and nurseries. The media have made clear that it has no intention of naming them. The issue is indirect identification. What is under consideration is whether what it is intended by the media has the same effect in terms of identifying the children.
14. I find without difficulty that the balance falls very much in favour of protecting the identity of the children.  There is no public interest in any other outcome.
15. The next question is whether there should be a restriction in naming the mother at this point in time. Her name is unusual [redacted]. She herself is vulnerable.  The purpose of adjourning the final hearing for an exceptional period of five months is to see whether she can resume care of the children once she has had the opportunity to undertake work.  Whether the children can return to her care is an exceptionally important decision that cannot be taken until October.
16. I am satisfied that the mother's name should be protected at least until October, when it will be known whether the children can return to her care.  If the children's names were changed they would be changed to same name as the mother. I do not understand from what has been said in Ms Norden's letter that this is a matter of strong objection from the media, but it can be commented upon once she has seen the revised draft order.
17. The matters that are contentious are that the local authority and Children's Guardian wish to see the names of Poppi and Mr. Worthington withheld. Mr. Worthington agrees.
18. This is in my view is more difficult. The potential consequence would be to require HM Coroner to hold an anonymous inquest, to continue an inquest into the death of an unnamed child.  If Mr Worthington were to be charged in respect of the death of Poppi or other allegations that have newly been made, those proceedings would have to be conducted anonymously unless that order was lifted.
19. Naming Poppi would markedly increase the chance that the surviving children would hear about it from the media or from others and prevent them having the opportunity of hearing about matters in a controlled way. These are exceptionally tragic circumstances. [Redacted] Mr Worthington says that naming him would destabilise his life. He works in a job that gives him access to the public. It could prejudice any criminal proceedings and he says that he could come into personal danger.
20. A further area of dispute is the width of the location to be embargoed. The media does not seem to object to a restriction preventing them from naming Barrow-in-Furness. I see that as a reasonable restriction at least at this point in time. Naming Barrow-in-Furness risks the identification of the children still further as it is a small and rather specific community.
21. I do not agree that the restriction should be any wider than Barrow-in-Furness. The matters urged on behalf of the children in particular persuade me to this view. The children have been caught in a desperate situation which is not of their making. I balance against that that they are now some distance away and that they probably will be for some time to come. Time is important for them as it will allow the social worker, the Children's Guardian and a psychologist to work with them. But I am not persuaded that a blanket ban on the press will dependably protect them or that there is not a better way of working with them that may protect them in the interim.
22. A powerful argument must be made to prevent a public trial or inquest for the reasons given in a number of earlier decisions. In this case, decisions in respect of criminal proceedings are yet to be taken. The Court cannot foresee and react to every possible development. The draft order will be pruned to take into account the effect of my rulings.
23. I would add that in respect of the public interest, there are cases in which the withholding of a father's name in Mr Worthington's position may be necessary, if the balance fell differently and where welfare demanded it, but here there is a public interest in such a serious matter being in the public domain. I have considered the risk to Mr Worthington but concluded that the risk to him is no greater than the risk posed to anyone else who is suspected to have carried out such actions. The public and the local community have a right to make their own decisions in respect of Mr Worthington.
24. I clarify that publication the Mother's name and photograph is also restricted.