THE father of tragic Poppi Worthington was accused of hiding behind a legal veil to avoid giving direct evidence at his own daughter's inquest, lawyers for the tot's mum claimed today.

Paul Worthington refused to answer more than 250 questions in relation to baby Poppi's final hours during the high profile hearing at Kendal's County Hall.

He relied Coroner's Rule 22 to do so - his legal right to refrain from answering anything which may incriminate him in the future.

But in closing submissions to Cumbria's senior coroner, David Roberts on the final day of the inquest, Gillian Irving QC, barrister for Poppi's mother, said this had the effect of hampering the proceedings - which have taken place in a bid to ascertain once and for all how the little girl suddenly died.

Poppi was just 13 months old when she collapsed at her family home in Barrow early on December 12, 2012.

She was pronounced dead shortly after 7am at Furness General Hospital despite sustained efforts by a team of emergency medics who tried to save her life.

The medical cause of her death is unascertained and natural causes have been ruled out by a string of expert pathologists and physicians.

Last year, High Court judge Mr Justice Jackson, now Lord Justice Jackson, ruled on balance of probability that Poppi had sustained a serious sexual assault at the hands of her father Paul shortly before she died - something Mr Worthington has always denied.

Speaking at the inquest today, Mrs Irving QC said: "The key protagonist exercised his right under Rule 22 not to give evidence.

"Obviously the protection afforded to him under Rule 22 allows him not to answer questions but given that a full inquiry was started on his behalf it's disappointing that he has chosen to hide behind the veil of Rule 22.

"Not to answer key questions at all as to the death of his child other than to refer back to matters on paper.

"Words on paper do not allow this court to assess demeanor and emotion," Mrs Irving added.

She went on to brand accounts given by police officers who attended the scene of Poppi's collapse as 'feeble and ineffectual'.

But Leslie Thomas QC, representing Mr Worthington, said his client had simply referred back to accounts already given closer to the time of Poppi's death.

"It's entirely inappropriate to leave the inference or smell that evidence has been excluded from these hearings," Mr Thomas told the court.

Legal teams for all interested parties at the inquest agree that 'verdicts' or conclusions of unlawful killing or natural causes are not applicable in the case of Poppi Worthington.

This is because, they stated, there is no firm evidence to support either cause to the standard of proof required by law.

Lawyers for Mr Worthington have submitted that an open verdict is the one they consider most appropriate.

In their submission, they state there is not enough evidence to confirm that Poppi was sexual assaulted before she died.

However, those acting on behalf of Poppi's mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, suggest an open or narative verdict could be given.

They said there is 'clear evidence' Poppi sustained a penetrative assault before her sudden collapse.

The inquest has heard from 37 witnesses in ten days held over the course of three weeks.

All evidence will now be considered in detail by Mr Roberts before he returns to give his conclusion on January 15.


Hearing evidence 'extremely difficult' for Poppi's mother

THE mother of baby Poppi said it had been 'extremely difficult' to hear evidence relating to the death of her daughter during the high profile inquest.

Poppi's mum, who is not named for legal reasons, has attended the majority of the hearing at Kendal's County Hall.

Her lawyer, Fiona McGhie, said: "Hearing the evidence presented throughout this inquest has been extremely difficult for Poppi's mother who is still obviously devastated by her daughter's death."

Poppi's mother was among those to give evidence to coroner David Roberts during the first week of the proceedings.

She described how Poppi had been 'snuffly' on the day before she died but had been an otherwise healthy little girl.

She checked Poppi at around 2am and saw her asleep in her cot.

She was later awoken by the sound of Poppi screaming before her former partner, Paul Worthington, came downstairs to get a new nappy.

Shortly afterwards he returned downstairs with Poppi limp in his arms, the court heard. She was not breathing.

Ms McGhie added on behalf of Poppi's mother: "She is grateful to the coroner and his inquest team for their thoroughness over the past few wees and we now await the conclusion in January".


What happens next?

Cumbria's senior coroner David Roberts will consider all evidence heard during the inquest over the last three weeks.

He will then form a conclusion over how Poppi died five years ago this week.

Mr Roberts will return to County Hall in Kendal on January 15 to give his verdict.


Who is David Roberts?

David Roberts is the senior coroner for Cumbria who will preside over the inquest into the death of Poppi Worthington.

A coroner for the last 33 years, Mr Roberts has presided over investigations into some of the most notorious and tragic deaths in Cumbria – including those resulting from the killing rampage of west Cumbrian man Derrick Bird in 2010.

During his time in the job, he has been responsible for investigating upwards of 2,300 deaths each year covering an area of some 2600 square miles from St Bees to Stainmore and Barrow to the Scottish Border.


Who was Poppi Worthington?

Poppi was a 13-month-old baby who lived at home with her parents and siblings in Barrow.

She died suddenly after collapsing overnight on December 12, 2012.

She was found to have sustained injuries before her death - though no medical cause has ever been ascertained.

She was also found to have suffered a broken leg some months before she died for which she received no medical treatment.

Her case came to light when it emerged a police investigation into her death had been botched and council bosses had spent £12,000 attempting to gain a media gagging order through the High Court to prevent details of her case from becoming public.