DD and others -v- The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police (anonymity order)

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: KB-2026-001642

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Interim Applications Court

3 June 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE

Between:

(1) DD
(2) DE
(3) DF
(Claimants)

-v-

(1) The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police
(Defendant)

Order

UPON the First Claimant’s application notice issued on 27 May 2026 seeking an anonymity order in respect of the Claimants and injunctive relief

AND UPON the Court considering the application notice, the certificate of urgency, the updated bundle of documents and the supplementary bundle of documents filed in support

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. Until further order, the Claimants in this case shall be referred to as “DD”, “DE” and “DF” and their names shall be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and CPR Rule 39.2(4), there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    i) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of the statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    ii) Unless the Court grants permission, no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case or any other document which would identify the Claimants, and any application for permission must be made on notice to the parties.
  4. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application to the Court, served on each party.
  5. The application for an injunction contained in the application notice issued on 27 May 2026 is refused.

REASONS:

  1. Whilst I have had regard to the fundamental principle of open justice, I am satisfied that it is necessary to grant the application for anonymity as the Second and Third Claimants are children and there are references within the documentation to personal matters relating to them.
    As the First Claimant is their father, I have also granted anonymity to him, as the other Claimants would likely be identifiable if he was named. My grant of anonymity is consistent with the order for anonymity made by Sheldon J on 29 December 2025 in judicial review proceedings subsequently issued as AC-2026-LON-000083. For consistency and to avoid confusion, I have designated the same ciphers as in those proceedings (although the Court generally now uses three letter ciphers).
  2. The Claim Form and Particulars of Claim refer to claims under the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) for breaches of Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“EHRC”), the Serious Crime Act 2015 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It is said that the Defendant’s Force has operated a long-term policy of discriminatory evidence filtering and investigatory sabotage against male victims of domestic violence and failed to investigate the First Claimant’s allegations that his children had been abducted or to treat this as a serious crime, rather than a civil matter. The First Claimant says he has suffered acute psychological regression, severe PTSD and suicidal ideation in consequence. He says his children have been secondary victims. The First Claimant indicates that he acts or proposes to act as lead claimant for an unidentified wider group of those affected by the matters he complains of and that he seeks a Group Litigation Order. He values the overall claim at £1.51 Trillion.
  3. The draft order provided with the application notice seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant to formally request, secure and preserve the Advance Passenger Information (API) data and Border Force flight manifests pertaining to DE and DF and their mother for specified periods in the summer of 2024 and 2025; and then to disclose the findings of the API data search to the Court and to the First Claimant.
  4. The application notice seeks determination of the application at a 30 minutes remote hearing. However, I am quite satisfied, pursuant to CPR 23.8(1)(c) that the application can fairly be determined on the papers and that a hearing is neither necessary nor appropriate. The First Claimant has made very extensive written representations within the substantial documentation he has provided. Whilst the application notice accepts that the Defendant should be served, there is nothing to indicate that the First Claimant has in fact served the application.
  5. For the reasons I summarise below in the next three paragraphs, the First Claimant has not shown that there is a serious issue to be tried.
  6. Private law claims for damages under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of discrimination in the provision of services and public functions must be brought in the County Court: see section 114. The High Court has no jurisdiction in respect of such claims.
  7. There is no indication as to how the provisions of the Serious Crime Act 2015 or the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 give rise to private law causes of action for damages.
  8. Despite the multiple written submissions by the First Claimant in the bundles provided he has not identified a coherent basis upon which it is said that the Defendant is in breach of the Articles of the ECHR that he identifies. Further, the limited medical evidence supplied in relation to the First Claimant, whilst referring to anxiety, depression and PTSD, does not support the alleged breaches of Article 2 and/or 3 or the alleged urgency. No medical evidence is supplied in relation to the Second and Third Claimants.
  9. If there were a serious issue to be tried (contrary to my primary conclusion above), I would not in any event grant the relief sought. The First Claimant initially reported the alleged abduction of his children to Avon and Somerset Police in July 2024 and there has been a lengthy series of communications thereafter. Whilst the First Claimant is clearly discontent with the way that officers responded to this allegation, no basis has been shown for the grant of an urgent mandatory injunction nearly two years later in May 2026 in relation to one of the investigatory steps he alleges should have been undertaken. The alleged admission of negligence appears to be a reference to a passage in the letter dated 18 March 2026 responding to the First Claimant’s complaint, where it was accepted that officers should have carried out some further enquiries, but there is no acceptance that doing so would have led to a different overall outcome. Furthermore, no explanation is provided as to how or why the alleged ongoing damage to the Claimants would be alleviated by the provision of the API data, particularly in circumstances where it is clear from his documentation that the First Claimant’s concerns range much more widely and relate, in particular, to proceedings in the Family Court in which he has been restricted from having contact with his children. It also appears likely that there is some significant overlap between allegations made by the First Claimant in these proceedings and in his earlier application for judicial review in AC-2026-LON-000083 against the same Defendant, in relation to which injunctive relief and permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers and the claim certified as totally without merit.
  10. I note that whilst the First Claimant states that he acts as Litigation Friend for the Second and Third Claimants, it appears to me unlikely that he meets the CPR 21.4 criteria for doing so if, as he says, he is currently restrained from contact with them. The question of a litigation friend for DE and DF will need to be resolved, but my refusal of the injunction application does not depend upon this.
  11. The draft order accompanying the application notice also seeks an expedited timetable for these proceedings and the listing of an urgent Case Management Conference for consideration of further directions and the making of a Group Litigation Order. For reasons I have indicated, there is no basis for listing an expedited hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, the application for an injunction has been referred to me as the Interim Applications Court Judge, future case management of the proceedings will be a matter for the Master.

Dated: 3 June 2026