Chief Constable of Surrey Police -v- Surrey Magistrates’ Court (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002487

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

1 August 2025

Before:

The King
on the application of
Chief Constable of Surrey Police
(Claimant)

-v-

Surrey Magistrates’ Court
(Defendant)

and

ABC (anonymity order granted)
(First Interested Party)

and

ZYX (anonymity order granted)
(Second Interested Party)

Order

On the claimant’s applications dated 22.7.25 for urgent consideration and interim relief and for permission to apply for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the claimant on 28.7.25 (the N463 being dated 22.7.25) and by the interested parties on 31.7 and 1.8.25

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Kerr

  1. The anonymity orders are granted. The anonymity order in respect of the first interested party will lapse, unless the court orders otherwise, if he is charged with a criminal offence arising out of the same subject matter as this claim.
  2. The application for interim relief and directions is listed for hearing before a High Court judge of this court) on Friday 15.8.25 at (unless otherwise advised) 10.30am, limited to 1½ hours (including judgment).
  3. The hearing will take place live in the Royal Courts of Justice, London, unless the parties are notified beforehand that the hearing is to take place by video link. Any further evidence or documents and any skeleton arguments and authorities must be electronically filed and served by 4pm on Tuesday 12.8.25.
  4. The claimant must forthwith deliver up to the solicitors for the first interested party all the devices and objects ordered by the magistrates on 9.6.25 to be returned to the first interested party (the devices and objects). The claimant will thereupon be deemed to have complied with the magistrates’ order of 9.6.25.
  5. The solicitors for the first interested party will hold the devices and objects in escrow, subject to any directions from the court, not in their own right; and will therefore not be deemed to be in possession of the devices and objects and not at risk of committing any crime.
  6. The solicitors for the first interested party will not, except with the written agreement of the claimant or the permission of the court, power up (except to charge batteries) activate or access the devices and objects or examine their content, pending the hearing listed for Friday 15.8.25 or further order of the court.
  7. Costs reserved.

    Reasons and Observations
    (1) The second IP is entitled to anonymity because she has made (whether or not well founded) an allegation of rape against the first IP. The first IP should be anonymous for now because he is the subject of a criminal investigation but has not been charged with any offence.
    (2) The claimant is in deliberate breach of the order made by the magistrates’ court on 9.6.25 (the order). He has delayed substantially both since April 2025 when the application was made, not engaging with the first IP, and since, neither complying with, nor appealing against, nor applying to set aside the order.
    (3) This judicial review application should have been made, if it is the appropriate remedy (as to which I have doubts) in June 2025 and not at the end of the High Court term and at the start of the vacation. No adequate explanation for the delay is apparent from the papers.
    (4) I do not see a clear triable issue that the magistrates acted unlawfully in making the order. They knew the first IP denied any crime and denied that the images were illegal. They took into account that the devices and objects were provided to police by the second IP and may not have been lawfully seized. Their conclusion that there was mere suspicion does not seem to me irrational.
    (5) A solution must be found whereby (i) the first IP can deal with his tax affairs (ii) the police can properly investigate crime (iii) the first IP can properly defend himself against criminal allegations and (iv) the family law proceedings can proceed. This should not be beyond the wit of reasonable people.
    (6) The parties should note that this order will be sent today by email to their legal representatives and it is binding and effective immediately on receipt by email attachment, without the need for any further sealed copy to be provided in addition to the electronic copy.

    Signed:
    Mr Justice Kerr, 1.8.25