Cumbria County Council v M & Ors

Publication and reporting restrictions should be reviewed as circumstances change. Information may be published where it no longer materially increases the risk of identifying protected persons. Restrictions directed at media intrusion may properly remain where they protect individuals from harassment or unwanted contact. Publication of a fact-finding judgment may be deferred where criminal proceedings remain a possibility and publication could affect the children’s welfare or the proper administration of justice. The court may direct reconsideration after a suitable period, taking account of the children’s circumstances and the position regarding any criminal charges.

The court reconsidered the scope of an existing reporting restriction order after the conclusion of a coroner’s inquest concerning the death of a child. Written submissions were made by media organisations and responses were filed by the parties. The issues included whether geographical references should remain restricted, whether a media door-stepping provision should continue, whether additional media-notification provisions should be made, whether an individual should now be granted anonymity, and whether the court’s earlier rulings, including its fact-finding judgment, should be published.

1. The restrictions on reference to Barrow and Furness General Hospital were no longer necessary. The mother and children had left the area, and publication of that information was not likely to make them more readily identifiable. The relevant provisions of the order were therefore deleted.
2. The door-stepping restriction was retained, but its scope was narrowed by substituting “any representatives of the media” for “any person”. The provision was intended to protect the mother and children from media intrusion while permitting ordinary day-to-day interactions.
3. A media-notification requirement was approved in an amended form. Its breadth was reasonable in the circumstances, and the notification period was fixed at three working days. A further provision was added because it clarified the order.
4. An informal application for anonymity by Paul Worthington was refused. The issue had previously been determined, he had since been publicly named, and anonymity was neither principled nor practicable at that stage.
5. Publication of the fact-finding judgment was refused for the time being. The court directed reconsideration on 30 March 2015, by which time a year would have passed since the hearing, the children’s position might be more settled, and a sufficient period would have elapsed for a decision on possible criminal charges. The local authority was directed to provide the judgment and amended order to Cumbria Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service, which could attend the reconsideration hearing if they wished to address publication.
6. Publication on Bailii of the 11 July ruling was approved in principle, subject to preservation of anonymity and removal of references to the findings of fact. The parties were directed to prepare the necessary amended order, explanatory note and edited ruling.

The judgment records an earlier reporting restriction order and ruling made by the same court on 11 July 2014. It was a further first-instance decision concerning amendment of that order and publication of earlier judgments.