AR -v- Secretary of State For Justice (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000169

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

14 May 2024


Margaret Obi (Deputy High Court Judge)


The King on the application of


Secretary of State For Justice


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Margaret Obi (Deputy High Court Judge)

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

2. The application is certified as totally without merit.

3. The title of proceedings is amended to reflect that the correct Defendant is the Secretary of State For Justice; not His Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service as named on the claim form.

4. The Claimant is granted anonymity until further order and shall be identified in these proceedings solely by his initials “AR”.

5. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Claimant. Any document filed at court which identifies the Claimant or any member of his family shall not be disclosed to any non-party in unredacted form. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of Court proceedings.

6. The claim is out of time.

7. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £7,571.70.

8. Paragraph 7 above is a final costs order unless within 14 days of the date of this Order the Claimant files with the Court and serves on the Defendant a notice of objection setting out the reasons why he should not be required to pay costs (either as required by the costs order, or at all). If the Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the Defendant may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response. The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant’s response is served, file and serve
submissions in reply. Thereafter, a Judge will decide on the basis of the written representations referred to above, what order for costs, if any, should be made.



Anonymity is granted to the Claimant under CPR r 39.2(4) and the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Claimant’s daughter is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Identification of the Claimant, in circumstances where his sexual offending was against his daughter, is likely to lead to her identification.


Claims for judicial review must be started promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds for making the claim first arose. The licence conditions were imposed on 8 November 2019. The claim was issued on 17 January 2024; more than four years later. The Claimant states in the claim form that “I have been requesting the help from Probation in this matter and I have given them plenty of time to do so before it went to Court, but they are unwilling to change my conditions”. However, no proper justification for the significant delay in bringing this claim has been provided.

Litigants in person are expected to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions and the provisions in the Administrative Guide equally apply to them.

There is no good reason for time to be extended.


Although delay is reason enough to refuse the Claimant’s application for permission I have considered the issues he has raised. The claim as a whole is not explained in terms that make out a well-defined case. The statement of grounds and facts contains generalised criticisms, but it is not clear what specific facts are relied upon and how and why they amount to an error in law.

The claim as pleaded is not arguable. There is no indication based on the documents provided that if the claim were amended the Claimant would be able to establish that there are reasonable grounds for permission to be granted.

Ground 1

The Claimant was sentenced to a determinate sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment, with time on remand to count against sentence. His original SED was 11 March 2028. Following the 60-day loss of time direction from the Court of Appeal, his SED was extended to 9 May 2028. This extended the overall length of his sentence, not merely its custodial portion.

Ground 2

The mandatory conditions apply to all licences (s250(4)(a) CJA read with Article 3 of the 2015 Order). The Court has no power to remove or amend these conditions.

Ground 3

There is no proper basis for challenging the additional conditions relating to risk control measures. The conditions are appropriate, necessary and proportionate to protect the Claimant’s ex-partner and his children and those to whom he is most likely to pose a risk. Having considered each of the conditions none of the challenges have any merit.

Ground 4

There is no proper basis for challenging the exclusion zone and the prohibition of contact with family. Exclusion zones can be justified based on the risk of accidental encounters and conditions limiting contact with family members are consistent with the policy objectives which include protection of the public and the prevention of re-offending.

Ground 5

The Claimant’s general challenge adds nothing of substance to grounds 2-4.

Ground 6

The RCN case related to the lawfulness of a ‘barred list’ scheme under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (“the SVGA”). This does not apply to the circumstances of the Claimant’s case.