BDT -v- The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-MAN-000125

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

1 April 2025

Before:

HHJ Stephen Davies,
sitting as a High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
BDT

-v-

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Order

UPON the Claimant issuing an application for anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) and CPR 5.4C(4) to restrict publication of his identity in these judicial review proceedings

ORDER by HHJ Stephen Davies sitting as a High Court Judge on 27 March 2025

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “BDT”.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) This order shall remain in force unless and until any further order is made by the Court varying or discharging some or all of its terms. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

REASONS

Anonymity:
I have regard to the guidance in the Administrative Court Guide 2024.
I must strike a balance between the public interest in open justice and the interests of the Claimant and his family which weigh in favour of more limited access to information.
The Claimant was a minor at the time of allegations being made against him, which did not result in any action being taken, but which have led to the Defendant’s continued retention of the Claimant’s personal data which the Defendant has refused to delete from the Police National Computer.
There is no sufficient general, public interest in the Claimant’s personal details being identified such as would justify the curtailment of his right and his family’s right to respect for their private and family life which would flow from his identity being published.
There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Signed: HHJ Stephen Davies