Application by the Health Trust, supported by the family of a woman in a permanent vegetative state, for a reporting restriction order (RRO). The application was to extend the RRO indefinitely. Mr Justice Jackson refused the application.
G suffered a heart attack which caused an irreversible hypoxic brain injury, leaving her in a permanent vegetative state. Her life was preserved by means of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. It was agreed that it is not in G’s interests for this to be continued and declarations have been made to this effect by the court.
Hogg J made a RRO on 11 March 2016 to last until one month after G’s death. The RRO prohibited identification of G or her family. The Trust submitted there is no public interest in G or her family being named and therefore applied to extend the RRO indefinitely, which was opposed by the Official Solicitor and the Press Association.
The Press Association submitted that the application “represents an attempt to persuade the court to derogate from the principle of open justice and extend the right to respect for private and family life beyond reasonable limits.”
The Trust relied on observations made by Charles J in V v Associated Newspapers Limited  EWCOP 21, that the normal duration of a RRO should be until further order.
The Official Solicitor submitted, in response, that satellite litigation on an issue of this kind is to be avoided.
The court decided that there was no reason to vary the reporting restriction order, as made by Hogg J.
There is no evidence that the identification of G would harm her family members or be a significant infringement of their privacy. Additionally it is unlikely that there will be any significant reporting and the fact that a RRO may not make much of a difference cannot strengthen the case for restrictions.
In reality the court noted this application may not have been made but for the decision in Re V. This judgment should be read alongside Re V to fully understand the reasoning behind the application.
Jackson J highlighted the following key points in his judgment:
Comments are closed.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Support the Hub
This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work. Click here to contribute.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath Publishing
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
Manage your email preferences