HJK and others -v- Director of Legal Aid Casework (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

AC-2024-LON-001929
AC-2024-LON-002263

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

18 February 2025

Before:

The Hon Sir Peter Lane

Between:

The King on the application of
HJK

PLJ

JNB

DSR

-v-

Director of Legal Aid Casework

and

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

Order

UPON considering (a) the application of the defendant dated 24 October 2024 for an extension of time to file the detailed grounds of defence; (b) the application of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority dated 6 December 2024 for permission to intervene in the proceedings; and (c) the claimants’ renewed application dated 23 December 2023 seeking anonymity

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision

Order by the Hon Sir Peter Lane

  1. The extension of time for filing the detailed grounds of defence is granted so as to enable those grounds to be considered.
  2. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) shall be joined to these proceedings as an intervener.
  3. CICA shall file forthwith the written evidence and exhibits which CICA provided to the parties on 18 November 2024.
  4. CICA shall file and serve any written submissions not later than 4pm on 24 February 2025.
  5. CICA may attend the hearing listed for 5 and 6 March 2015, through counsel, with permission to make submissions limited to 30 minutes.
  6. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), unless and until a court directs otherwise, the claimants are granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify them or any member of their family. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
  7. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy of any document on the court file in these proceedings must be made on notice to the parties.
  8. The consent order signed by the parties and dated 4 September 2024 is hereby approved.
  9. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. DGD: The extension is plainly appropriate. The DGD have been filed and served.
  2. CICA: It is regrettable that CICA’s application to intervene was overlooked by the ACO. I nevertheless consider that (a) CICA’s intervention is likely to materially assist the court; and (b) allowing it to intervene will not prejudice parties or endanger the hearing. As to the latter, the parties have had for some 3 months the materials mentioned in paragraph 7 of CICA’s application and paragraph 3 of the above order. CICA’s written submissions will be with the parties some 8 days before the hearing. The claimants are represented by highly experienced counsel, who will have no difficulty assimilating the material (Indeed, CICA’s regime features heavily in the claimants’ skeleton argument). The 30 minutes sought by CICA (and any oral responses) is unlikely to result in the hearing being unable to finish on 6 March, albeit that it might now go into the afternoon of that day.
  3. Anonymity: The claimants have now provided very much more information than was available to the judge who refused the earlier application for anonymity. It is now manifest that the interests of the claimants, who have suffered sexual abuse and some at least of whose traffickers may be in the UK, outweigh the very powerful public interest in open justice. The draft order of the claimants proposes the filing of redacted copies of statements of case. Since this application is also regrettably being decided only 15 days before the hearing, I consider this proposal to be impracticable. The concern can be met by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the above order.