EXC -v- The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (anonymity order)
Case No: CO/2136/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
4 July 2022
Before:
David Elvin QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
The Queen on application of EXC
-v-
The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
On an application by consent for an extension of time to serve acknowledgment of service, to serve replacement grounds and for anonymity.
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant including the pre-action correspondence, the Defendant’s request for an extension of time, the Claimant’s application to amend her statement of facts and grounds and the signed consent to the following order dated. The Defendant delivered its pre-application response on 9 June 2022. I have also considered the Claimant’s notice of application dated 23 June 2022 for anonymity. Order by David Elvin QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
Order by David Elvin QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
1. The Claimant has permission to amend her statement of facts and grounds by a replacement facts and grounds in the form dated 22 June 2022 and filed with the Court.
2. The Defendant’s acknowledgment of service and summary grounds to be filed and served within 21 days of this order.
3. Identification of the Claimant is prohibited, pursuant to CPR r.39.2, and the Claimant is to be referred to as “EXC” throughout these proceedings.
4. Costs in the case.
Reasons
I agree to the terms of the consent order although in the circumstances it is not necessary to deal with the Defendant’s pre-action response, it having been served, not to provide time for the replacement statement of facts and grounds, it having already been provided to the court. I have also considered the anonymity application pursuant to CPR Part 39 and having regard to XXX v Camden London Borough Council [2020] 4 WLR 165, consider the grounds set out in the replacement grounds to be made out and that it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Claimant. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard in particular to (1) competing rights under the ECHR including arts 8 and 10 (2) interests protected under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (3) the public interest in open justice and (4) proportionality.