Poppi Worthington's father refuses to answer potentially incriminating questions at inquest
Former Asda supermarket worker has been in hiding for about two years since a family court judge ruled he probably sexually assaulted his daughter
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
The father of Poppi Worthington refused to answer questions 69 times as he gave evidence at the fresh inquest into his daughter’s death, invoking a rule on potential self-incrimination.
Paul Worthington, 49, repeatedly said: “I refer to my previous statements, I don’t wish to answer” to questions posed at the second coronial hearing into the circumstances surrounding the 13-month-old girl’s death in December 2012.
The former Asda supermarket worker has been in hiding for about two years since a family court judge ruled he probably sexually assaulted Poppi before she collapsed at her home in Barrow-in-Furness and died in hospital more than a hour later.
Screened from the public gallery but not members of the media, he was flanked by two male police officers in the courtroom at County Hall, Kendal as he started his evidence from the witness box.
After he confirmed his full name, Paul Edward John Worthington, and that he was Poppi’s father, counsel to the inquest Alison Hewitt explained to him there would be “no trick questions”.
Miss Hewitt’s first question was to ask him to confirm that he started his relationship with Poppi’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in about 2009.
Mr Worthington calmly replied: “I refer you to my previous statements. I rely on the right not to answer that under Rule 22.”
HM Coroner for Cumbria, David Roberts, explained to him that under that section of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 he was not obliged to answer any questions tending to incriminate him .
Mr Roberts told the witness that Miss Hewitt’s first question was “perfectly straightforward”, not self-incriminating and he must answer.
Mr Worthington went on to confirm background details of the relationship with his ex-partner, including when Poppi’s mother became pregnant with her and that he later had a vasectomy in 2012.
But when the subject moved on to general sleeping arrangements in the household and how it would compare with the fateful events of the early hours of December 12 2012, Mr Worthington’s barrister, Leslie Thomas QC, raised the possibility that his replies could be incriminating.
Mr Roberts agreed and told the witness he was not obliged to answer questions on the matter.
Mr Worthington declined to comment about earlier statements and accounts on sleeping arrangements.
Then, Mr Roberts informed Mr Worthington he was not obliged to answer any questions about events on the dates of December 11 and December 12.
Mr Worthington elected to choose not to answer Miss Hewitt’s questions about similar previous statements he had made about those dates.
Poppi’s mother sat in court next to her legal team and held her head in her hands for the most part before leaving about 40 minutes into Mr Worthington’s evidence.
Mr Worthington smiled slightly when first giving his stock answer to the questions and smiled slightly again a number of times as he repeated the phrase throughout the afternoon hearing, lasting an hour and three quarters.
He used the same response to a series of apparently innocuous or non-contentious questions involving domestic arrangements and details he had already given in previous statements.
But he also refused to answer detailed questions about the minutes and hours leading up to the death of Poppi.
Miss Hewitt continued: “Do you agree that from 2am, 2.30am on the 12th of December that the events from that point onwards to you carrying Poppidownstairs not breathing, that you are the only person who can account for the events between the two times?”
Mr Worthington replied again: “I refer to my previous statements.”
He was also asked about his use of a laptop in bed, which he had said previously he used to view “X rated adult stuff”.
Miss Hewitt asked about the reference to pornography and the type of pornography.
Again the witness refused to give an answer.
Coroner Mr Roberts adjourned the hearing with the words: “It’s been a long day for everybody” and said the court will reconvene at 9.30am on Thursday with Mr Worthington continuing to face more questions.
The courtroom was cleared before police dealt with taking the witness out of the building where press cameras were waiting.
Mr Worthington smiled slightly when first giving his stock answer to the questions and smiled slightly again a number of times as he repeated the phrase throughout the afternoon hearing, lasting an hour and three quarters.
He used the same response to a series of apparently innocuous or non-contentious questions involving domestic arrangements and details he had already given in previous statements.
But he also refused to answer detailed questions about the minutes and hours leading up to the death of Poppi.
Miss Hewitt continued: “Do you agree that from 2am, 2.30am on the 12th of December that the events from that point onwards to you carrying Poppidownstairs not breathing, that you are the only person who can account for the events between the two times?”
Mr Worthington replied again: “I refer to my previous statements.”
He was also asked about his use of a laptop in bed, which he had said previously he used to view “X rated adult stuff”.
Miss Hewitt asked about the reference to pornography and the type of pornography.
Again the witness refused to give an answer.
Coroner Mr Roberts adjourned the hearing with the words: “It’s been a long day for everybody” and said the court will reconvene at 9.30am on Thursday with Mr Worthington continuing to face more questions.
The courtroom was cleared before police dealt with taking the witness out of the building where press cameras were waiting.
Earlier, Mr Worthington scurried in through the back door of the building shielded by police officers as he arrived for the hearing.
Before any evidence was heard and Mr Worthington was called, his lawyers applied for permission from the coroner for him to give evidence from behind a screen so he could not be seen by the public or the 22 journalists present.
His junior counsel, Paul Clark, told the court: “He has been in a long-term position of great vulnerability and risk and he’s been in a long-term position of witness protection, whereby currently his appearance and location is not known.
“There are photos of Mr Worthington online but what is not known to the public is currently his location but also his current appearance.
“In this case it has been apparent throughout that there’s a real risk to Mr Worthington’s life, and even if not at a risk of death, risk of serious mistreatment and clearly substantial concerns outside these tangible risks and substantial concerns on Mr Worthington’s right to private life that has already been jeopardised, very, very substantially indeed.”
But Jude Bunting, representing nine media organisations, said the application for screens was “desperate stuff” based on mere “vague assertion”.
Mr Bunting said the fundamental principle is one of open justice, so what happens in courts is not hidden from the public and that includes the reporting of the identity of witnesses, seeing them and hearing them.
Gillian Irving QC, representing Poppi’s mother, supported the media’s position and said Mr Worthington should be visible to everyone.
She added: “She’s waited almost five years for this hearing, and the notion that she in some way should be deprived of hearing what is probably the last formal occasion where Mr Worthington gives evidence is unsatisfactory in the extreme.”
Following legal submissions over several hours Mr Roberts ruled in favour of the press.
Mr Roberts said: “I fully realise anyone accused as he was effectively in that judgment is going to feel under pressure from social media and the public and is going to fear reprisal.
“It is an opportunity for him to put his case, as it were. The public interest in this case is high.
“I can’t say what may happen in the future but we know the Crown Prosecution Service have on a number of occasions indicated they don’t intend to pursue matters so it may be this is the best opportunity for Mr Worthington to express himself in a public arena.
“Mr Worthington has an opportunity in these proceedings to give me his side of events, tell me what happened and answer questions from other people, including his own legal team.”
In his fact-finding judgment as part of care proceedings, Mr Justice Peter Jackson – now Lord Justice Peter Jackson – said Poppi’s “significant bleeding” within 15 minutes of the 999 call made from the family home could only be sensibly explained as the result of penetrative trauma.
A police investigation launched after Poppi’s death was botched by Cumbria Police, with vital evidence discarded and witnesses not interviewed until months later.
Mr Worthington strenuously denies any wrongdoing and has never been charged with any offence.
The second inquest was ordered after the controversial first hearing, held by a different coroner, was shrouded in secrecy and lasted just seven minutes.
PA