August 13, 2025

CDO and CDR -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002654

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

In the matter of a prospective application for judicial review

12 August 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) CDO
(2) CDR
(Prospective Claimants/Applicants)

-v-

The Director of Public Prosecutions
(Prospective Defendant/Respondent)

Order

On the Applicants’ application for urgent relief, dated 7 August 2025, made prior to issuing proceedings for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Applicants

And on the Court being satisfied that it is appropriate to consider the application on the papers

And on the Court also being satisfied that the Orders made at paragraph 1 below:

(a) are strictly necessary for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; CPR 39.2; and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and
(b) strike a balance between the public interest in open justice and the particular interests of the parties which weigh in favour of more limited access to information, including for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

ORDER by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

PENAL NOTICE
IF YOU THE RESPONDENT DISOBEY THIS ORDER YOU MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED OR FINED OR HAVE YOUR ASSETS SEIZED. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DISOBEYS THIS ORDER OR DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS ANY PERSON TO WHOM THIS ORDER APPLIES TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE HELD TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR ASSETS SEIZED.

NOTICE TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER
You should read the terms of the Order and the Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders very carefully. You are advised to consult a solicitor as soon as possible. This Order prohibits you from doing the acts set out in paragraph 1 of the Order. You have the right to ask the Court to vary or discharge the Order. If you disobey this Order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and you may be sent to prison or fined or your assets may be seized.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

ANONYMITY; ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS; NON-PUBLICATION

(a) The Applicants are permitted to issue proceedings for judicial review naming the First Applicant/Claimant as ‘CDO’ and the Second Applicant/Claimant as ‘CDR’, and giving an address c/o the Claimants’ solicitors.
(b) There be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the Applicants/Claimants by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the letters “CDO” and “CDR”.
(c)The Respondent/Defendant, and any Interested Party or other person with knowledge of the identity of the Applicants/Claimants (or either of them) must not publish or communicate or disclose to any other person either Applicant’s/Claimant’s name or address(es) other than: (i) by way of disclosure to the Respondent’s/Defendant’s legal advisers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to these proceedings; or (ii) for the purpose of carrying this order into effect.
(d) Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of either Applicant/Claimant, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of either Applicant/Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(e) No copy of any statement of case and no copy of the witness statements and the application will be provided to a non-party without further order of the Court.
(f) Any non-party, other than a person notified or served with this Order, seeking access to, or copies of, the above-mentioned documents, must make an application to the Court, proper written notice of which must be given to the other parties.
The above orders were made without a hearing, on the application of the Applicants and pursuant to CPR 3.3(4). The parties or anyone affected by any of the restrictions in this order may apply to the Court at any time to vary, discharge or stay this order (or so much of it as affects that person), but they must first give written notice to the Applicants’/Claimants’ solicitors. If any evidence is to be relied upon in support of the application, the substance of it must be communicated in writing to the Applicants’/Claimants’ solicitors in advance. In the event that any such application is made, it is to be referred to a High Court Judge within two working days of its receipt by the Court. In any event, the orders made are subject to review of the Court’s own motion, on notice to the parties.
The Applicants/Claimants must serve proceedings for judicial review by no later than 4:00pm on Friday 15 August 2025, alternatively, and by the same deadline, apply to discharge the orders made above. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this paragraph is to be taken as extending the limitation period applicable to either Applicant’s/Claimant’s claim.
If this order ceases to have effect or is varied, each Applicant/Claimant is immediately to take all reasonable steps to inform in writing anyone to whom that Applicant/Claimant has given notice of this order, or whom that Applicant/Claimant has reasonable grounds to suppose might act upon this order, that it has ceased to have effect in this form.

INTERPRETATION OF THIS ORDER
(a) A Respondent/Defendant who is an individual who is ordered not to do something must not do it himself or in any other way. He must not do it through others acting on his behalf or on his instructions or with his encouragement.
(b) A Respondent/Defendant which is not an individual which is ordered not to do something must not do it itself or by its directors, officers, partners, employees or agents, or in any other way.

PARTIES OTHER THAN THE CLAIMANTS AND THE DEFENDANT
Effect of this Order

It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this order knowingly to assist in or permit a breach of this order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANTS’ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

The Applicants’/Claimants’ solicitors are:

Broadfield Law UK LLP, Katharine Smith, Legal Director, One Bartholomew Close,
London EC1A 7BL.
Tel: 020 7227 7000
E-mail: reception@broadfield-law.com

Reasons

This matter is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
The Applicants intend to issue proceedings for judicial review tomorrow — 13 August 2025, being the date on which they are advised that the limitation period for the First Applicant’s/Claimant’s claim will expire. It is that which renders the application urgent.
The intended claims will seek permission to challenge the lawfulness of the Respondent’s decision not to consider either Applicant a victim for the purposes of the Victims’ Right To Review Scheme, following an earlier decision not to charge certain individuals who were present at/connected with a demonstration which took place outside a Jewish cultural and community centre on 27 October 2024 with any criminal offence. For the reasons set out in the witness statements and exhibits lodged in support of their application, the Claimants fear that, were their names and addresses to be publicly available in connection with their claims, they would be subject to threats, abuse, intimidation, and/or other forms of reprisal.
Open justice is a fundamental principle, derogations from which can only be justified in exceptional circumstances, based on necessity. Having closely scrutinised the evidence lodged by both Applicants, I am satisfied that, as matters stand, the orders made above are justified to secure the proper administration of justice, and that there is no less restrictive or more acceptable alternative to the orders granted. I am further satisfied that, as matters stand, there is no sufficient general, public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings which identifies either Claimant and/or the normally reportable details to justify the curtailment of their rights to respect for their private and family life. The orders made do not prohibit publication of the matters giving rise to the claims, and hearings would take place in public, in the ordinary way.
The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 2 of my orders (which would extend to representatives of the Press and other media, as affected parties). The orders made are subject to review, on application, or of the Court’s own motion on notice to the parties.

Signed: Naomi Ellenbogen
Dated: 12 August 2025