GSX -v- Southwark Crown Court (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-004130

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

26 March 2025

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GSX

-v-

SOUTHWARK CROWN COURT

and

METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER
FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
(interested parties)

Order

(A) UPON an application by the Claimant for (1) anonymity (2) reporting restrictions (3) permission for judicial review, in a claim for judicial review of a decision to issue a search warrant, where the warrant was issued on an ex parte application with a sensitive schedule of material.
(B) AND UPON the Defendant having confirmed as a court that it does not intend to make a submission.
(C) AND UPON the Interested Parties having each accepted that permission for judicial review should be granted.
(D) AND UPON the Claimant seeking remedies – on five pleaded grounds for judicial review – in the form of (i) an order quashing a search warrant (ii) a declaration that entry, search and seizure were unlawful (iii) an order for delivery up of items seized and destruction of copies (iv) a permanent injunction prohibiting use of material or information obtained.
(E) AND UPON the Interested Parties having accepted that remedies (i) and (ii) should be granted, but only on the basis of some parts of the five pleaded grounds for judicial review; and having resisted grounds (iii) and (iv), submitting (among other things) that issues of retention and use should be resolved in the crown court.
(F) AND UPON the Claimant’s grounds for judicial review (§27) having invited the Interested Parties promptly to make a PII application in relation to a sensitive schedule; the Second Interested Party’s summary grounds of resistance (§35) having confirmed that “a PII application will be made”; and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide (§19.4) describing the Haralambous jurisdiction including a “first hearing” (§19.4.2.3).
(G) AND UPON the Claimant’s application for anonymity and reporting restrictions being based on (a) the position of a member of the legal profession of good standing and good character who has not been charged with any offence (b) the Interested Parties’ agreement as to the legal invalidity of the search warrant.
(H) AND UPON the Court being satisfied that there are sufficiently compelling reasons for the derogations from the principle of open justice in §1 of this Order, until such time as the Court has been able to consider anonymity on the basis of (G) further, with a skeleton argument and the full citation of illustrative authority before or against such a course.
(I) AND UPON THE Court being satisfied that what is needed next in this case is consideration of the following: (1) anonymity; (2) whether to proceed to grant remedies (D) (i) and (ii) on the basis of what is accepted in (E); (3) what course to take in respect of the resolution of contested issues which go only to remedies (D) (i) and (ii); (4) what course to take in respect of the resolution of contested issues which go to remedies (D) (iii) and (iv); (5) what course to take in relation to the Haralambous jurisdiction.

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pending further order, 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 GSX.
    (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.
    (c) 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;
    (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.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Permission for Judicial Review: Permission for judicial review is granted (a) on all grounds advanced and (b) in respect of all remedies sought.
  3. Hearing: There shall be a hearing (time estimate one day) for the purposes described in Recital (I) to this Order, for the first reasonably convenient date – fixed by reference to the parties’ Counsel – after 4 June 2025.
  4. Directions:
    (a) The Second Interested Party shall within 21 days of this Order file any PII claim under the Haralambous jurisdiction.
    (b) No later than 28 days before the hearing, the Interested Parties shall file and serve skeleton arguments, together with any evidence and authorities. The skeleton arguments may (if so advised) stand as Detailed Grounds of Resistance.
    (c) No later than 14 days before the hearing, the Claimant shall file and serve a skeleton argument, together with any reply evidence and authorities, within an indexed and paginated composite hearing bundle, accompanied by an indexed and paginated composite authorities bundle.
    (d) No later than 7 days before the hearing, the parties shall file and serve an agreed list of issues, chronology and pre-reading list; together with draft orders which each party is inviting the Court to make at the hearing.
    (e) Liberty to apply in writing on notice to vary these directions or for further directions.