CEY -v- Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-BHM-000072

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

27 February 2026

BEFORE;

HHJ CARMEL WALL

BETWEEN:

THE KING on the application of
CEY

-v-

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS POLICE

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HER HHJ CARMEL WALL SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 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 CEY.
    (b) 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.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;
    (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.
  2. Urgent consideration: The application for urgent consideration is refused and certified as totally without merit.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the costs of and occasioned by the application for urgency.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: This claim makes allegations concerning the lawfulness of an Order relating to children who are currently the subject of proceedings in the Family Court. In order to prevent disclosure of the identities and personal circumstances of those children, it is necessary to prevent disclosure of the Claimant’s name. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Urgent consideration:
a. By this claim dated 13 February 2026 (filed on 20 February 2026) the Claimant seeks to challenge the making and lawfulness of a Police Protection Order (“PPO”) made on 12 September 2025 and the lawfulness of an arrest on 1 January 2026. The urgency is claimed with respect to the PPO only.
b. The direct effect of the PPO has passed (and the PPO was made more than 3 months before the claim was filed). Although the Claimant would wish to argue that the PPO should not have been made and/or was procedurally defective so that the record that it was made should be expunged, this cannot now be regarded as a matter requiring urgent consideration. Within the Family Proceedings, the Court will consider the welfare of the children holistically and have regard to all relevant circumstances. Within those proceedings the Claimant is not precluded from presenting evidence and submissions insofar as they are relevant to the welfare of the children.
c. No disclosure orders are appropriate at this stage. The Defendant has a duty of candour and cooperation with the Court. There is no evidential support for the conclusion that the Defendant will not comply with that duty.
d. The application for urgent consideration is in any event defective. No date for service of the application on the Defendant has been recorded.
(3) Restraint Order: I have considered but do not make a limited civil restraint order. That is because this is the first application made in this particular case that has been certified as totally without merit. I note that a “totally without merit” certification was made in a different but related case (AC 2025-BHM-000400). The Claimant is reminded that persistently making claims and applications that are totally without merit is likely to lead to an Extended Civil Restraint Order being made against him