BR -v- Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (anonymity order)
Claim No; CO/2416/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
27 July 2022
Before:
Mr James Strachan QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Between:
The Queen on the application of
BR
-v-
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
On an application by the Claimant
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by Mr James Strachan QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “BR”, and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any other information tending to identify the Claimant in relation to their involvement in these proceedings.
2. The Claimant’s solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identify of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 8 above.
3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protected the identity of the Claimant in accordance with paragraph 1 above without the permission of the Court. Where non-parties request any documents, regardless of whether they identify a party by name, the parties will be given seven days to make submissions prior to any document being released.
4. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge the orders made under paragraphs 1-3. The need for this order should be reviewed on the determination of the application for permission to claim judicial review in light of any further submissions from the parties.
5. The Claimant’s applications for a stay, an order requiring the Defendant to provide a substantive response to the Claimant’s Pre-Action Protocol letter before claim and other consequential directions are refused.
6. Costs reserved.
Reasons
1. C has made an application for anonymity which, given the underlying subject matter of the claim, appears to be justified. However, in the absence of any Acknowledgment of Service (“AoS”) or other submissions from D (addressed further below), it is appropriate that the need for such an order be reviewed in light of any submissions from the parties at the permission stage.
2. C’s applications for a stay, an order requiring D to respond to the C’s Pre-action Protocol (“PAP”) Letter Before Claim (“LBC”) and consequential directions are not justified and/or unnecessary at this stage in the proceedings.
3. C’s Claim Form was filed on 6th July 2022. In accordance with CPR 54.8, D has 21 days after service of the claim form to file and serve an AoS if it wishes to take part in the claim. There is no information before me as to when service occurred, but even if it was effected on 6th July 2022, the time for serving that AoS has not yet expired.
4. The AoS procedure should establish whether D intends to contest the claim and, if so, in accordance with CPR5.48(4) D must set out a summary of his grounds for doing so (and D may well deal with the request for documentation as appropriate).
5. If D does not file an AoS, the provisions in CPR54.9 will apply and the Court will proceed to consider permission in the absence of an AoS from D and any consequential directions if permission is granted.
6. In such circumstances, where the time for filing and serving an AOS is shortly to expire, it seems inappropriate and counter-productive to stay the proceedings at this stage and instead to issue an order requiring D to respond to the PAP LBC. Compliance with the PAP is not mandatory. It would be regrettable if D has failed to comply with the PAP without good reason but that is a matter that the Court can take take into account in relation to consequential matters. But now that the claim has been filed, with the consequential requirements (summarised above) that apply, it is not appropriate or necessary to make the orders C seeks, rather than wait for D’s response to the claim in accordance with the Rules.