Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Dale Stephenson (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-BHM-000277

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

11 May 2025

Before:

Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

Director of Public Prosecutions

-v-

Dale Stephenson

Order

UPON HEARING Ms Squire for the Appellant and Mr Gosnell for the Respondent.

AND UPON the Court being satisfied that the terms of this Order are necessary to protect the legitimate interests of children and the proper administration of justice in family proceedings.

IT IS ORDERED that:

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, there must not be disclosed in these proceedings the identity of the Respondent’s children or his former partner.
  2. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Respondent’s children or former partner, or of any matter likely to lead to their identification (including the road in which a school is located) in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

Fordham J
DATED 11.4.25

REASONS. The subsequent judgment of Fordham J dated 16.4.25 DPP v Stephenson [2025] EWHC 950 (Admin) records the following at §3:

Reporting Restrictions. The contents of this judgment are fully reportable. I made an anonymity and reporting restrictions order, for publication (CPR39.2(5)). This case arises out of NMO proceedings heard in private (FPR10.5). There were linked Children Act proceedings to which confidentiality protection attaches (FPR12.72-12.73A). The test of necessity is satisfied, to protect the children’s legitimate interests and secure the proper administration of justice. The protection extends to naming their mother, who shares their second name. It extends to naming a school and its location. But it does not extend to identifying the Respondent. He has been named in criminal proceedings at a public hearing. Any remittal would be back to magistrates. He does not share the same second name as the children or their mother, his former partner.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT