CVB -v- Medway Magistrates’ Court (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003760

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

13 November 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield

Between:

The King
on the application of
CVB
(Claimant)

-v-

Medway Magistrates’ Court
(Defendant)

and

The Environment Agency
Philip Barker
Clive Massey
Mark Gregory
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield:

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “CVB”.

(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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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. Stay:

    (a) The criminal proceedings brought by the Environment Agency against the Claimant (case no: 462500012852) in Medway Magistrates’ Court shall be immediately stayed pending determination of the Claimant’s application for permission for judicial review (Claim No AC-2025-LOND-003760), or until further order of this Court.

    (b) The Defendant or any Interested Party may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.

    1. The continuation of the anonymity order under paragraph 1 and the stay under paragraph 2 shall be considered further by the Court on paper when it considers the application for permission to apply for judicial review.

    REASONS

    This application has come before me on 13 November 2025 as immediates judge seeking relief in respect of a hearing in the Magistrates’ Court due to take place on 17 November 2025. Given the urgency of the matter and the complexity of the issues raised in the claim for judicial review, I can do no more than make an order to hold the ring pending proper consideration of (a) permission to apply for judicial review and (b) the appropriateness of interim relief on an ongoing basis.

    Anonymity: I note that the Magistrates Court has refused anonymity in the proceedings in that Court. Although I have seen reference to an application for judicial review of that decision, no such claim is before me. While I have some doubts as to the necessity of an order for anonymity, I have regard to the alleged impact on the Claimant of publicity of criminal process which may in due course be determined to be a nullity. In the circumstances, and to preserve the potential for further consideration of anonymity by this court I make an order (a) limited to these proceedings and (b) time limited until the permission application is considered. That limited interference with open justice is justified as necessary to protect the Claimant’s article 8 rights, but will be subject to fuller consideration in due course.

    Stay: For interim relief purposes, the claim form raises issues which satisfy the low threshold of a serious issue to be tried that the decision of the Magistrates’ Court to issue a summons should be quashed. I say no more about the merits than that, and the merits will need to be considered more fully at the permission stage, in the light of AOS and representations from the Defendant and interested parties. It is neither in the interests of the Claimant, nor the efficient administration of justice, that the proceedings in the Magistrates Court proceed until the challenge to the Magistrates’ Court’s summons has been considered, at least at the permission stage. Accordingly, I stay the proceedings until consideration of permission. If permission is granted, it will be a matter for the judge granting permission to consider whether to continue the stay, and the anonymity order.

    Signed: Mr Justice Mansfield
    Dated: 13 November 2025