CC -v- Plymouth Youth Court (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000663
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
6 March 2025
Before:
The Hon. Mrs Justice Farbey
Between:
The King on the application of
CC (A child by his Litigation Friend)
-v-
Plymouth Youth Court
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
(Interested party)
Order
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties
ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Farbey
1. Pursuant to s. 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is ordered that the publication of any report of these proceedings, or any part of these proceedings, shall be postponed until the conclusion of the trial of the charges that form the subject of this claim, whether in Plymouth Youth Court or in any other court including the Crown Court, in order to avoid a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings.
2. The Claimant and Interested Party shall by 4pm on 6 March 2025 file and serve on the Defendant an agreed draft order disposing of all aspects of the claim, which the Interested Party does not oppose.
3. The Defendant is invited (but not ordered) by 4pm on 6 March 2025 to file and serve notice of whether it opposes the claim or adopts a neutral position.
4. The claim will be listed for a rolled-up hearing on 7 March 2025 with a time estimate of 2 hours. All procedural steps and time limits are waived.
5. The Claimant shall by 4pm on 6 March 2025 file and serve any application for the anonymity of the Claimant as a child subject to extant criminal proceedings, preferably in terms agreed by the Interested Party. Until then, the Claimant will on an interim basis be referred to as CC as he is a child.
6. The Interested Party shall by 10:00 am on 7 March 2025 file and serve any notice under section 51C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
Reasons
There is no proper explanation for the delay in launching proceedings which has wasted court resources both in Plymouth and in the High Court. It is also difficult to understand why the litigation friend is the Claimant’s solicitor when the Claimant as a child defendant has – in all likelihood – other specialist and independent support or why the statement of facts is signed by barristers who on conventional grounds cannot give evidence in their own case.
Setting those concerns aside, it appears that the Claimant and Interested Party are in a position to reach terms of consent by which the claim should be allowed. I have not seen a full acknowledgment of service but it is unclear from reading the Defendant’s response to the claim whether the Defendant adopts a neutral position or is resisting the claim on the grounds that the decision under challenge was lawful.
In light of the urgency, I have listed the claim for a rolled-up hearing tomorrow. If it transpires that (i) the Claimant and Interested Party can reach agreement on the disposal of the claim; and (ii) the Defendant does not positively resist the claim, it should be possible for the court to resolve the matter on the papers or (if needed) by way of a short hearing.