FD24P00133 - [2025] EWHC 2032 (Fam)

Mrs Justice Morgan:

This judgment is to be read with those reported at Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB LB, Fatima and Others[2024] EWHC 3292 and as Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v KB LB Fatima and Others [2025] EWHC 1292.

Fatima, in respect of whom decisions have already been made by this court has, following the Courts determination undergone surgery for a tracheostomy. Treatment for her and training for her family continues, with the intention that she will be fully discharged to live at home with her parents. It is anticipated, or at least hoped, that the process by which she will be fully discharged home will be completed by a date later this year.

The matter has been restored to court to consider the question of whether, and if so to what extent the Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) made on 18^th December 2024 and varied within the lifetime of these proceedings should continue. It was always anticipated that this aspect of the case would return for further consideration following the hand down of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abbasi and others [2025] UKSC 15 since at the time the substantive decisions were made in respect of Fatima, all recognised that the imminent decision in Abbasi was likely to be pertinent to the circumstances to be considered by this court. When the order restricting publication of information was made in this case it was expressed as a reporting restriction order. All are agreed that following the detailed consideration by the Supreme Court in Abbasi, in particular para [48]- [51] of the nature and effect of such an order, it is better expressed now perAbbasi in terms of injunction.

The Trust in that context applies to extend the existing order until 4 weeks after Fatima is fully discharged home. It seeks to prevent the naming of all treating clinicians as well as those who gave evidence and were second opinion doctors. This is not a case in which anyone suggests that the identities of Fatima or her parents should be protected by any extension. Fatima’s parents, take no issue with the continuation of the injunction for the proposed period of extension. There is some disagreement as to the scope of the injunction which it will be necessary to consider below. The parents invite clarity as to the effect in this case of the application of the residual restrictions in place under s 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.

In responding to the application made by the Trust, the parents advance their own position which in essence amounts to this. The Court’s decision on the issue of withdrawal of life sustaining treatment generated a certain amount of media interest. Fatima’s parents have been contacted by various media organisations expressing interest in interviewing the parents in connection with the human-interest aspects of their experience. Fatima’s parents would like to accept invitations to give interviews and to, as they put it ‘tell their story'. They are anxious in so doing to know what identities or details they may give and not to find themselves inadvertently either in breach of any continued injunction or outside any restrictions of s 12 of the AJA. As to the latter point they invite either this court’s interpretation/critique of the decision of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abbasi, as to which they submit para [120] has introduced confusion, or - should this court not be attracted to that course - as an alternative, discharge in whole or variation in part of that which would be prohibited by s12 AJA with explicit detail by way of schedule to any order of what may or may not be reported. Finally, they invite permission (insofar as it is not material falling within PD12G) to disclose some of the documents from the proceedings to certain organisations and entities and there is a difference of view between the parents and the Trust as to whether if documents are to be disclosed that should be in redacted form or otherwise.

The Guardian supports the application for extension of the order by the Trust until four weeks after Fatima is fully discharged. She is neutral as to the Parents’ position on clarification or discharge in respect of the application of Section 12 of the AJA save that she would not support that having the effect of permitting the publication of matters which should not (even on the parents’ case) be permitted. She invites, if the Court reaches the point of discharge, consideration to an order which replicated the effect of a standard transparency order. It is a curiosity of this case that, as Ms Cheetham KC observes, by a few months only it fell to be determined before the coming into effect of Practice Direction 12 R which would have, at least in the case of a Reporter, given access as of right to much of that which has been under discussion at this hearing.