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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000135

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 April 2026

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
CEY
(Claimant)

-v-

Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  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.

  1. Mandatory injunction:

The application for a mandatory order is refused and the application for such an order is certified to be Totally Without Merit.

  1. Extended Civil Restraint Order:

An extended Civil Restraint Order is made against the Claimant in accordance with the attached standard form order.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The case involves the Claimant’s children who are subject to proceeding in the Family Court. The private interest in protecting the children outweighs the public interest in knowing the identity of the Claimant and through him the children. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
Interim Relief: The interim relief sought is that the Defendant should be ordered to disclose within 7 days any contemporaneous statutory record relied on to exercise his powers under Section 46 of the Children’s Act 1989 on 12/9/25. The application is said to be urgent because when removal took place on 12/9/25 no record of cause for the removal was produce and it is suggested that this is needed for family proceedings. However: (a) it appears that the next family hearing is not due to take place until 8/7/26; (b) an application in identical terms was made by the Claimant in Judicial Review Claim AC-2026-BHM-000072 filed on 13/2/26 in which the Claimant made a very similar claim against the Defendant. That application for Interim Relief was dismissed by HHJ Wall on 27/2/26 and she certified that application as Totally Without Merit. The reasons given by HHJ Wall apply equally to this application; and (c) he Claimant has come nowhere near justifying the court ordering that Defendant to provide disclosure before the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the Claim or the application for interim relief.

Extended Civil Restraint Order:

AC-2025-BHM-000303 – This claim for judicial review issued by the claimant on 10 October 2025 challenged the decision of Birmingham Children’s Trust (“the Trust”) to take the Claimant’s children into care. The Claimant applied for a mandatory injunction to suspend the operation of a care plan put in place by the Trust and for disclosure of documents. That application was refused by me on 9 October 2025. The reasons given were that the claim appeared a very weak one and that the balance of convenience did not lie with granting the mandatory injunctions sought. Whilst the application was not marked Totally Without Merit it is clear from my reasoning that the application did lack any merit.

On 1 December 2025 HHJ Wall refused permission for the Claimant to bring this claim for Judicial Review noting that the statement of facts and grounds were unclear and that the matters raised could be resolved in public law family proceedings. Again it is clear from the reasons that the claim was devoid of merit.

AC-2025-BHM-000354 – This claim for judicial Review was made against the Trust and the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (“CCWMP”) challenging the imposition of pr-charge bail conditions and the Police Protection Order made in respect of the Claimant’s children. The Claimant applied for urgent consideration of his claim which Obi J refused on 14 November 2025 on the basis that natural justice required that the Defendants be given a fair opportunity to respond to the claim.

AC–2025-BHM-000400 This claim for Judicial Review issued by the Claimant challenged decisions of the CCWMP and the Trust in relation to the Claimants children. The Claimant applied for interim relief. That application was refused by Eyre J on the 17th of December 2025, Eyre Certified both the application for permission and the application for interim relief as Totally Without Merit and dismissed them.

On 19 December 2025 Eyre J directed that if the Claimant made any further claims/application to the Administrative Court, then his order of 17 December 2025 together with 5 orders made by other judges in Judicial Review claims made by the Claimant (including the above orders) should be made available to the judge considering such a claim/application. Eyre J gave as his reasons for making that direction that whilst, he had not decided to make a Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant at that stage, because only one application had been certified as totally without merit (although a number of claims/applications made by the Claimant had failed) the Claimant was at risk of such a Civil Restraint Order being made if he continued to make further unmeritous applications.

AC-2026-BHM-000172 – This was a further claim against the CCWMP. The Claimant made an application for interim relief which HHJ Wall, by order dated 27 February 2026, certified to be Totally Without Merit. HHJ Wall recorded that she had considered making a limited Civil Restraint Order, but the application before her was the first application made in that particular Judicial Review claim which had been certified as Totally Without Merit and she reminded the Claimant 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.

AC-2026-BHM-000135 – These are the present Judicial Review proceedings to which the CCWMP is the Defendant. In these proceedings the Claimant has sought interim relief in identical terms and on identical grounds to the interim relief sought in claim AC-2026-BHM-000172. I have certified this application to be totally merit without merit for the reasons set out above.

The Claimant has now made one Judicial Review Claim and three applications all of which have been certified to be Totally Without Merit. The Claimant has been warned on 2 occasions (by Eyre J and by HHJ Wall) that persisting in making unmeritorious applications is likely to lead to an extended Civil Restraint Order being made against the Claimant. Given these circumstances it is entirely apparent that the Claimant will not desist from making unmeritorious claims and applications within those claims unless restrained from doing so by an extended Civil Restraint Order and for those reasons I make such an order.

Signed: HHJ Rawlings

Date: 9/4/26