Case number: CO/913/2023
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
20 March 2023
Dan Squires KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
The King on the application of
London Borough of Newham
On an application by the Claimant for expedition and anonymity
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by Dan Squires KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- The papers should be placed before a Judge for a decision on permission 14 days after (a) an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed by the Defendant or (b) the expiry of the 21 day period for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, whichever is the earlier.
- Identification of the Claimant is prohibited, pursuant to CPR r.39.2, and the Claimant is to be known as “GK” throughout these proceedings. Pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant without the leave of the court.
- The proceedings shall be known as R (GK) v London Borough of Newham.
- There be substituted for all purposes in this case, in place of references to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to GK.
- So far as any document to which any person might have access pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4A-D at any time does not comply with the above, the Claimant’s solicitor has leave to file with the Court copies of such documents adjusted so as to comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant originals.
- Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment, Order or other document from the Court records without the permission of a Judge and unless the document has been anonymised in accordance with the direction above.
- An application to obtain a document as above must be made on notice to the Claimant and other parties (the Court will effect service).
- An application to set aside or vary this order may be made on notice to all parties.
- The Claimant does not seek an order reducing the 21-day period for the Defendant to serve its Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8.(2)(a)). She does, however, ask that the matter be referred for urgent consideration on the paper thereafter. I consider that expedition is appropriate given the Claimant’s vulnerability and the ongoing impact on her of the matter under challenge (namely her placement in what she says is unsuitable mixed-gender accommodation). The Judge considering permission can determine whether a further order of expedition is appropriate in the light of his/her conclusion on permission and any submissions made by the Defendant on expedition.
- I consider that anonymity is appropriate in this case. The Claimant has made an allegation that she is the victim of trafficking (and is thus entitled to anonymity pursuant to s 2(1)(db) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1982). I have also taken into account her vulnerability more generally, as well as the private nature of much of the evidence in the case. I make the above anonymity orders pursuant to CPD r 39.2(4).