HAD -v- Independent Office for Police Conduct (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002984

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

20 February 2026

BEFORE:

HHJ Marquand

BETWEEN:

THE KING on the application of
HAD

-v-

INDEPENDENT OFFICE FOR POLICE CONDUCT

and

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS
(Interested Party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 23.12, 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Permission:
    (a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
    (b) The application is certified as totally without merit.
  2. Costs: No order as to costs

Reasons

  1. The claimant is a victim of historical sexual abuse in 2002. Although the claimant has not asked for it, I have made a separate anonymity order in light of this history. A medical examiner was unable to date the healed injuries but said they were more than 10 days old. This was investigated in 2002, 2018 and 2020. The claimant has no memory of the incident. In 2021 the investigation was once again closed. On 19 May 2023 the claimant complained about the 2020 investigation conducted by the interested party, not just with regard to the investigation but also to the manner of the investigation and seeking an apology to her relative. The interested party responded to that complaint and that response is dated 29 February 2024. The claimant complained about that response to the defendant. The defendant responded in a letter dated 16 May 2025 and concluded that the defendant’s response to the claimant’s complaint was reasonable and proportionate. The application for review was not upheld. It is this decision that the claimant seeks to challenge.
  2. The claim form was filed on 4 September 2025 and issued for service on the same day. The claim form was served on the defendant on 17 September 2025. There is no application for an extension of time within which to bring the claim and there is no application for an extension of time for service of the claim form.
  3. A claimant must serve a sealed copy of the claim form together with a copy of the bundle of documentation within seven days of the claim being issued. Where there is no application to extend time the claim form has to be set aside and the court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim (see paragraph 7.9.1 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 and the case footnoted). A claim must be started promptly and in any event not later than three months after the grounds for making the claim first arose (see paragraph 6.4.1 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 and the reference to the CPR footnoted). Litigants in person are expected to comply with the CPR (see paragraph 4.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2025 and the case footnoted).
  4. As the claim form has been served outside the seven-day period required and there was no application to extend time the claim form must be set aside as the court does not have jurisdiction. However, if that were wrong, the claim has been brought outside the time limit prescribed by the rules to challenge the decision of 16 May 2025 as it should have been brought no later than 16 August 2025 but was in fact filed on 4 September 2025. There is no application for an extension of time period and in those circumstances if I had not set aside the claim form I would have refused permission for judicial review on this basis.
  5. Nevertheless, I have considered the merits of the grounds advanced. Ground one alleges procedural unfairness. The ground is difficult to follow but it appears to relate to an investigation in 2002. However, the decision under challenge relates to the decision to close the 2020 investigation. That was explained to the claimant in writing and with meetings on 12 May 2022 and March 2023. There is no arguable ground on the basis of procedural unfairness. Ground 2 and ground 3 can be taken together and are that the 2020 investigation was inadequate. The letter explains why a range of people suggested by the claimant where there is no indication that anyone has no material evidence to provide where the claimant has no evidence to provide herself is not arguably an error of public law. Understandably, the claimant is aggrieved that it is not been possible to hold somebody to account for what has happened to her but the defendant’s application of its obligation in reviewing the interested parties response is not arguably an error of public law. It cannot be considered to be a decision that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have reached. Ground 4 alleges various human rights breaches and this adds nothing to the other grounds and in any case appear to be articulated as free standing claims that arise out of the investigation as opposed to the defendant’s statutory responsibilities. Even if I had not set aside the claim form and even if I had not refused permission to appeal on the basis that the claim was out of time, I would have refused permission on the basis that there is no arguable ground for judicial review which has a realistic prospect of success. Taking all these matters into account leads me to conclude that this application is bound to fail and I therefore certified it as totally without merit

Order

On the Court’s own motion

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Anonymity:
    (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 HAD.
    (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.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: This claim concerns an investigation into historical sexual abuse of the claimant. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1