This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/25/woman-died-kidney-treatment-losing-sparkle-cannot-be-named-court-rules

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Inquest of woman who 'lost sparkle' to be held without naming her Inquest of woman who 'lost sparkle' to be held without naming her
(about 20 hours later)
An inquest into the death of a woman who died after refusing life-saving treatment is to be held without her being named after a senior court of protection judge extended an anonymity order.An inquest into the death of a woman who died after refusing life-saving treatment is to be held without her being named after a senior court of protection judge extended an anonymity order.
The highly unusual procedure will prevent identification of the 50-year-old, who said she no longer wished to live because everything in her life that “sparkles” – chiefly her youth and beauty – had gone.The highly unusual procedure will prevent identification of the 50-year-old, who said she no longer wished to live because everything in her life that “sparkles” – chiefly her youth and beauty – had gone.
Mr Justice Charles, the second most senior court of protection judge in England and Wales, handed down the decision after media organisations applied for the woman to be identified on the grounds that she had died. The decision represents a significant assertion of court powers to enforce privacy. Mr Justice Charles, the second most senior court of protection judge in England and Wales, handed down the decision after media organisations applied for the woman to be identified on the grounds that her anonymity should not continue after death.
The judge ruled that there was no public interest in C, as the woman is known in the court proceedings, being identified. She died last year. The judge ruled that there was no public interest in C, as the woman is known in the court proceedings, being identified. She died last year. Her daughters are said to have been left “distressed” and “fragile” by the court proceedings and media stories.
Extending the order to cover the coroner’s court, which he envisages will be held in open session, was necessary, Charles added, because: “The history of the prurient nature of some of the earlier reporting is a clear indicator that such reporting might be repeated.” Extending the order to cover the coroner’s court, which will be held in open session, was necessary, Charles added, because: “The history of the prurient nature of some of the earlier reporting is a clear indicator that such reporting might be repeated.”
Her case became the subject of legal action after King’s College hospital NHS foundation trust in London asked a judge to decide whether she had the mental capacity to decide to refuse treatment. Her case became the subject of legal action in 2015 after King’s College hospital NHS foundation trust in London asked a judge to decide whether she had the mental capacity to decide to refuse treatment.
Charles said the court of protection, while examining whether the woman had sufficient mental capacity to refuse treatment, had “invaded their private and family lives and made a finding … that has had a profound effect and impact on [the family]”.Charles said the court of protection, while examining whether the woman had sufficient mental capacity to refuse treatment, had “invaded their private and family lives and made a finding … that has had a profound effect and impact on [the family]”.
Four media groups – Associated Newspapers, Times Newspapers, Independent News and Media, and the Telegraph Media Group – had argued that journalists should be allowed to identify the woman now she had died.Four media groups – Associated Newspapers, Times Newspapers, Independent News and Media, and the Telegraph Media Group – had argued that journalists should be allowed to identify the woman now she had died.
There are no recent precedents involving an inquest being held where the person who died has not been named. Anonymous inquests are extremely rare. The few precedents involve inquests into SAS soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq where their names were withheld for security reasons.
Reporting restriction orders that related to court of protection cases which involved serious medical treatment issues could extend beyond the death of the subject of those proceedings, the judge said. There was “no presumption or default position” that such orders should end on death. Reporting restriction orders in court of protection cases which involved serious medical treatment issues could extend beyond the death of the subject of those proceedings, the judge said. There was “no presumption or default position” that such orders should end on death.
Lawyers representing one of the woman’s daughters have argued that C should remain anonymous in death – to protect her relatives’ rights to private and family life.Lawyers representing one of the woman’s daughters have argued that C should remain anonymous in death – to protect her relatives’ rights to private and family life.
Mr Justice Charles was highly critical of much of the media coverage of the case. Two of the woman’s daughters, he explained, had “been distressed by having to be involved in the court of protection proceedings, and by the extensive media interest in the information about ...their family...”The coverage, the judge added, “appears to them to have been precipitated not only by a wish to report and comment on the bases on which the [court] reached its decision but also to attract prurient interest in their mother’s sexual and relationship history (including her relationship with her children).”
Laura Hobey-Hamsher, a solicitor at the law firm Bindmans who represented the daughter, said: “A 50-year-old woman who had three daughters and a grandchild died. That needs to be remembered … This is not about stifling genuine public debate, but about balancing the risk of harm to (the woman’s) family were her identity to be revealed, against the public interest in doing so.”Laura Hobey-Hamsher, a solicitor at the law firm Bindmans who represented the daughter, said: “A 50-year-old woman who had three daughters and a grandchild died. That needs to be remembered … This is not about stifling genuine public debate, but about balancing the risk of harm to (the woman’s) family were her identity to be revealed, against the public interest in doing so.”
The ruling by Mr Justice Charles is binding on the coroner’s court. The coroner will still be required to provide the name of C, the deceased woman, to the registrar of births and deaths. The inquest, even though anonymised, is expected to be heard in public.