Mr Justice Charles has issued guidance and a revised template order relating to the transparency and Reporting Restrictions Orders.

​The revisions follow comments in his judgment of V v ANL [2016] EWCOP 21 following which

"the ad hoc Committee on the COP Rules has considered the amalgamation of the two approaches and as a result has recommended that a further amendment should be made to the Transparency Pilot to achieve the result that it applies to all proceedings in the COP apart from applications for committal."

The revised order:

• is still directed to those who attend or find out what happened at an attended public COP hearing, and so is not directed to the world at large which the RROs were,
• still does not contain a schedule identifying those who cannot be identified,
• contains alternatives relating to its duration (which reflect the old Pilot Order and the RROs) for selection by the judge,
• now does contain a list of what is not restricted by the order, which is modelled on, but does not replicate, the list in the RROs, and
• provides that the injunction does not apply to a public hearing of, or the listing for hearing of, any application for committal.

However a change for serious medical cases is that prior notice of the making of a Pilot Order will not be given to the media.  

​You can read the full guidance note and download the revised order on the Judiciary website.

Daughter's application for the continuation of a RRO after her mother (who was in a minimally conscious state) died following the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by means of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration. The application was refused, the judge saying that "the balance here weighs more heavily in favour of freedom of expression".

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Application by the family of a woman in a permanent vegetative state for a RRO, which was to last for 1 month after her death, to be extended indefinitely. The application was refused.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

A reporting restrictions order was continued until further order which prohibited the identification of the Patient. In this judgment Mr Justice Charles discusses the balancing act between the default rule, which is that hearings should be held in public, and the article 8 and 10 rights of the P's children.
​
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii