A high court judge has justified a controversial media blackout around the death of a baby in Cumbria by saying possible criminal proceedings could be prejudiced by any reporting of the case.
Mr Justice Peter Jackson said reporting restrictions relating to the death almost two years ago of 13-month-old Poppi Worthington would also protect her vulnerable siblings.
His statement, handed down at the high court on Monday, follows a series of reports questioning the judicial secrecy surrounding the tragedy, which media organisations have been challenging.
The inquest on 21 October into Poppi’s death – on 12 December 2012 – lasted only seven minutes. Cumbria coroner Ian Smith decided that the cause of death was “unascertained”.
He did not disclose any further information.
Poppi’s father, Paul Worthington, 46, was arrested last year on suspicion of sexually abusing her. He remains on bail along with another adult.
The Guardian reported last week that Cumbria police was being investigated over its response to the death, and that an officer had been suspended.
Earlier this year a two-week hearing was held in the family court relating to Poppi’s death, presided over by Jackson.
At end of the hearing, the judge came to some conclusions about the case, which he summarised in a fact-finding judgment.
On Monday he said there were two reasons why he was not yet willing to publish this judgment. He wrote: “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 restrictions. 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.”
He concluded: “The circumstances of Poppi’s death will surely become known to the public in due course but, for the reasons that I have given, limited reporting restrictions remain necessary at this point in time and the fact-finding judgment of this court cannot yet be published.”
