The tragic case of Poppi Worthington has not been far from the headlines in the last few weeks, due to coverage of the family court case involving Poppi’s father. The Judge in the case, Mr Justice Peter Jackson, made a ruling that, on the balance of probabilities, Poppi’s father had sexually assaulted Poppi prior to her sudden death in 2012.

In the recent case, Poppi’s father was challenging findings of fact which were made in a previous hearing in 2014. Those findings had not been reported because of a reporting restriction. However, the recent hearing and outcome has received extensive media coverage because the Judge decided that there was a strong public interest in reporting the circumstances of Poppi’s death.

The normal position in relation to hearings such as this one is that judgments should be published, but before allowing publication the judge must consider all the circumstances of the case, including the impact which publishing the judgment might have on criminal proceedings.

The High Court also has the inherent power to put reporting restrictions in place when they are necessary to protect individuals, or in the interests of justice – all whilst bearing in mind the importance of free speech.

Daily reporting of such cases is virtually unheard of.

Although the Judge in this case wanted to allow reporting, ground rules and restrictions were established at the outset. The restrictions were:

• The hearing took place in private with accredited journalists allowed to attend on a daily basis. Journalists were asked to sign in each day.

• Journalists were provided with a suite of documents giving the background to the case, including the previous (unreported) judgment and a summary of medical evidence. The documents were for information purposes and were not for publication.

• Daily reporting was allowed, subject to any further conditions imposed by the court. Reports could not be published until the end of each day of the hearing, so the court could consider whether additional restrictions were required.

• Until the final judgment was published, nothing could be reported which indicated the original findings from the 2014 hearing.

• The final judgment was published, at which point, the 2014 judgment was also published.

A reporting restriction remains in place relating to the identification of other family members.

The reporting arrangements outlined above were unprecedented, as the judgment acknowledged. The judgment specifically states that the day to day reporting of the case, and the arrangements put in place, did not establish new law and were “not intended to set a precedent for other family cases”.

The Judge went on to say that, notwithstanding the above, the behaviour of the journalists was professional and their attendance “reflected the seriousness of the occasion”. He also commented that, in his opinion, the ability to report and comment on the case had been a “valid exercise”.

We have to treat the above with caution, because it does not create a precedent in itself, given the very specific circumstances of the case.

What it does do, however, is demonstrate “best practice”, with the family courts and journalists working together to ensure that the public interest is fulfilled, whilst protecting the vulnerable. The rules put in place in this case seem eminently sensible to me, and have allowed extensive coverage of an incredibly important case.

My hope is that this case demonstrates to other family court judges that co-operation between the parties, journalists and the court is both possible and actually, beneficial.