GIR -v- Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001820

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

23 February 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
GIR

-v-

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

and
ISL
(Third party applicant)

Order

Recitals

R1. The Claimant has made an application for permission for judicial review. The Court is of the view that permission, and if so on what grounds, should be ventilated at an oral hearing.
R2. The Claimant has made an application for anonymity, and the Court is satisfied that an Order should be made. The provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to this case. Under those provisions, where an allegation has been made that a sexual offence has been committed against a person, no matter relating to that person shall during that person’s lifetime be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the victim of that offence. This prohibition applies unless waived or lifted in accordance with s.3 of the 1992 Act. The case involves an allegation by the Claimant of rape. There is no basis to lift the statutory protection. But there is the usual liberty to apply.
R3. The grounds for judicial review have not yet been redacted to remove the Claimant’s name (see eg. para 55). The TPA is named in the grounds for judicial review, but not in the Defendant’s summary grounds (see para 4).
R4. The TPA has made an application (requesting determination on the papers) to be served as an Interested Party; as to which the Claimant and Defendant maintain that the TPA is not a person “directly” affected, notwithstanding Watson [2025] EWHC 332 (Admin); and they have raised questions about the extent to which disclosure would in any event be appropriate. The Court does not consider it appropriate to resolve these questions on the papers. It is appropriate to have a hearing to consider them.
R5. The TPA has made an application for anonymity (requesting determination on the papers), based on (a) identification of the TPA falling within the Claimant’s statutory protection as a matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the Claimant; or (b) based on (i) patent unfairness of asymmetric protection, (ii) Art 8 and/or (iii) potential prejudice to a fair trial (Kemp WS para 35). The Claimant disavows (a). The Court is unpersuaded as to (a), (b)(i) and (b)(iii). The Court considers that there may be an Art 8 necessity as supported in the detailed submissions (in a reply) based on ZXC [2022] AC 1158. The Court does not consider it appropriate to resolve these questions on the papers, but does consider there to be a sufficient necessity to grant the TPA anonymity protectively so as not to foreclose on the Art 8 position pending its ventilation at a hearing; but with liberty to any member of the press or public to apply to vary or discharge the Order.
R6. By a request dated 12 February 2026, Bloomberg News EC4N 4TQ has requested copies from the court records of the Form N461 and grounds for judicial review and the Form N462 and Summary Grounds of Resistance. The Court considers that Bloomberg News should (a) be served with this Order (b) be entitled promptly to redacted copies of these documents (c) have the opportunity to make written submissions and seek to make oral submissions at the hearing regarding anonymity and open justice.

ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  1. Anonymity of the Claimant (GIR):
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 GIR.
    (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.
  2. Provisional anonymity of the Third Party Applicant (ISL):
    Subject to further Order of the Court:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Third Party Applicant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Third Party Applicant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ISL.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Third Party Applicant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Third Party Applicant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Documents from Court Records:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant and Third Party Applicant.
    (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.
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    (b) This Order shall be served by the Court and by the Claimant on Bloomberg News EC4N 4TQ who shall be entitled to the redacted statement of case documents referred to in paragraph 3(a)(i) of this Order and entitled if it wishes to make written submissions for, and/or oral submissions (to the extent permitted by the Judge) at, the hearing in paragraph 5 of this Order.
  4. Liberty to Apply: Any member of the press or public may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 1 of this Order, by making an application served on the Claimant and Defendant; or paragraph 2 of this Order, by making an application served on the Claimant, Defendant and Third Party Applicant.
  5. Oral hearing:
    (a) The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be determined after a hearing.
    (b) The hearing will consider: (i) whether the Third Party Applicant is entitled to be served, and if so with what documents, as a person “directly affected”; (ii) whether to grant, refuse or defer permission for judicial review; (iii) whether paragraph 2 of this Order should be continued; (iv) further directions in the case.
    (c) The hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 75 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge.
    (d) Within 14 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve on the Defendant (not the Third Party Applicant) an electronic copy of a Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website.
    (e) Within 14 days of the service of this Order, the Third Party Applicant must file and serve on the Claimant and the Defendant an electronic copy of a Third Party Application Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website.
    (f) At least 14 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant, Defendant and Third Party Applicant must each file and serve a skeleton argument (maximum 12 pages), plus an annex listing the authorities which it considers the Court will need.
    (g) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic bundle containing the authorities identified in the parties’ annexes, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website.