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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003863

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

6 May 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Lavender

Between:

The King on the application of
BSD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Anonymity

  1. (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 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 “BSD”.
    (b) Pursuant to section 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) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Directions

  1. The Defendant must, within 14 days of service of this order, state whether or not there is any issue as to service of the claim form and state whether she intends to file an Acknowledgment of Service and, if so, when.

Reasons

  1. Publicising the claimant’s identity could lead to his being harmed. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  1. The absence of an Acknowledgment of Service suggests that there may be an issue in relation to service. Alternatively, the claim may have been overlooked. In any event, clarification of the defendant’s position would assist the court.