The Press Association v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Evidence Law
- Health Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case examines whether the anonymity of a protected person can and should be maintained after their death. It involves LM, a Jehovah’s Witness who, after a court declaration, was allowed to refuse a blood transfusion against medical advice. The court ruled that while it has the power to maintain posthumous anonymity, it found that the circumstances warranted lifting the order concerning LM but maintaining it for others involved.
JUDGMENT
Mr Justice Peter Jackson:
This application arising from proceedings in the Court of Protection raises questions about the continued confidentiality after a person's death of information gathered during litigation occurring during her lifetime. The first question is whether an order that preserving the person’s anonymity (and hence the confidentiality of information about her) can continue to have effect after her death. If such a power exists, the second question is whether it should be exercised in the present case.
For the reasons set out below, I consider that the court does have the power to preserve the anonymity of the protected person after death but that in this case the balance falls in favour of lifting that anonymity.
The facts
Fuller details can be found in my judgment of 26 February 2014, reported at [2014] EWHC 454 (COP) . In brief:
LM, a 63-year-old Jehovah’s Witness with a history of mental illness, was admitted to hospital in a deteriorating condition for which a blood transfusion was indicated. After careful assessment, the doctors considered that she had the mental capacity to refuse blood products in accordance with her beliefs.
On 18 February, I heard an urgent application made by Mr Barry Speker on behalf of the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust seeking a declaration that it would be lawful for the doctors to withhold a blood transfusion. Having heard from the lead doctor and from two representatives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I granted the declaration, which was drawn up and sealed that day. I indicated that I would hand down a written judgment a few days later.
As this was a case involving serious medical treatment, I directed under Court of Protection Rules 2007 r.92(1)(a) that the hearing should take place in public, and Mr Brian Farmer, a journalist from the Press Association, was in attendance.
During the hearing Mr Speker applied for a reporting restriction order (RRO) preventing the naming of LM, and the medical and care staff, and the two Jehovah's Witnesses. Having canvassed the views of Mr Farmer, I approved an order in those terms under Rule 92(2) and spelt out its terms in open court. I directed that before it was formally drawn up the procedures required for service of the application by Practice Direction 12I to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 should be followed.
Where necessary, the court can make RROs without full compliance with the notice requirements (see paragraph 19 of the P