BJL -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000398

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

4 June 2024

Before:

David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
BJL

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

1. The Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.

2. There be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters “BJL”.

3. There be substituted for all purposes in this claim, in place of reference to (i) the solicitor referred to in paragraph 4a of the JR Grounds, (ii) the sponsor company referred to in paragraph 14 of the JR Grounds, and (iii) the two owners of that company referred to in paragraph 19 of the JR Grounds, and whether orally or in writing, reference to: (i) “Mr X”, (ii) “the Company”, (iii) “Ms Y” and “Ms Z”, respectively.

4. The Court file is to be retained by the Court and marked “anonymised”.

5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, a person who is not a party to these proceedings may obtain a copy of pleadings or orders from the Court records only if they have been anonymised in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

6. 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.

7. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an application to the Court, served on each party.

Reasons

1. The Claimant has applied for anonymity. The Defendant has not objected. The question of anonymity is one for the Court. The Court must bear in mind that derogations from open justice are exceptional and need clear justification, based on the concept of necessity.

2. The Claimant is said to be a victim of trafficking, and claims that he and his family have been threatened with physical harm. The claim includes allegations against a solicitor regulated by the SRA, and individuals connected with a UK-registered company (including its directors).

3. I agree that the risk to the Claimant or his family, if publicly identified, makes it necessary to grant anonymity. I have hesitated about whether the Claimant’s reference to the need to avoid “reputational damage” to those identified in paragraph 3 of my order is sufficient to outweigh the open justice principle in respect of anonymity for them. However, on balance I consider that anonymity should indeed extend to those persons, in order to avoid the risk of (jigsaw) identification of the Claimant.