HMY -v- Crown Prosecution Service (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-BHM-000145

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

29 October 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Eyre

Between:

The King on the application of
HMY

-v-

Crown Prosecution Service

and

Cesar Filho
(Interested party)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

AND UPON it appearing that (a) non-disclosure of the identities of the Claimant and of her daughter is necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules and to comply with the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and (b) that there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice made in this order.

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Eyre

1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A-5.4D and Rule 39.2 and to ensure compliance with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:

    (a) The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as “HMY” and her daughter as “HAL” and there shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the name of the Claimant, reference to “HMY” and in place of references to the name of her daughter “HAL”.

    (b)  There shall be no publication of any name, address, picture or other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant as being the Claimant in these proceedings or of her daughter as being her daughter;

    (c)  In paragraph (b) “publication” means communication to the public or any section of the public whether by way of report of the proceedings or otherwise. It includes publication in a newspaper or broadcast, or on the internet, by any person;

    (d) The Defendant, and any party served with or given notice of the anonymity order, has permission to apply to discharge or vary that order. Any application for that purpose must be made in writing, on notice to all parties;

    (e) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (i) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as “HMY” and her daughter as “HAL”; and (ii) any reference to the address and other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or her daughter has been deleted from those documents.

    2. Any application for permission to inspect or obtain a non-anonymised version of a document must be made on notice to the Claimant and in accordance with CPR r.5.4C(6).

    3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.

    4. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £2,006.

    5. Paragraph 4 above is a final costs order unless within 14 days of the date of this Order the Claimant files with the Court and serves on the Defendant a notice of objection setting out the reasons why he should not be required to pay costs (either in the amount required by the costs order, or at all). The submissions shall not exceed 3 pages. If the Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the Defendant may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response (not to exceed 3 pages). The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the Defendant’s response is served, file and serve submissions in reply (not to exceed 2 pages).

    6. The directions at paragraph 5 apply whether or not the Claimant seeks reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review.

    (a) If an application for reconsideration is made, the Judge who hears that application will consider the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 5 above together with such further oral submissions as may be permitted, and decide what costs order if any, should be made.

    (b) If no application for reconsideration is made or if an application is made but withdrawn, the written representations filed pursuant to paragraph 5 above will be referred to a Judge and what order for costs if any, should be made will be decided without further hearing.

    Reasons

    1. The anonymisation of the names of the Claimant and of her daughter is necessary for the reasons set out above.
    2. The hurdle to be surmounted before there can be a successful judicial review of the decision by a prosecutor not to proceed with a case is a  high one. It is not sufficient for a claimant to show that a different view could rationally have been taken by the prosecutor. Instead, it is necessary to show that the decision was outside the wide range of decisions open to a prosecutor acting rationally in the particular circumstances.
    3. There is no realistic prospect of the Claimant surmounting that hurdle in this case.
    4. The core of the Defendant’s reasoning was that there were inconsistencies in the potential prosecution evidence and that these, when combined with the assertion by McKenzie that the Claimant and her daughter had sought to persuade him to give false evidence, meant that there was not sufficient prospect of a court being satisfied of the Interested Party’s guilt to convict him.
    5. The Defendant was entitled to regard those as significant matters markedly affecting the reliability of the prosecution evidence and as undermining the prospects of obtaining a conviction.
    6. The fact that there would have been potential for the cross-examination of McKenzie if he had been called as a defence witness does not advance matters. The account which he had given to the police would have had to have been disclosed to the defence and ultimately to the court if the prosecution had proceeded and would have had a significant impact on the prospect of the court accepting the evidence of the Claimant or her daughter.
    7. Similarly, the fact that there were other enquiries which could have been made does not alter the fact that these matters constituted significant weaknesses in the reliability of the prosecution evidence. That was a matter of crucial importance given that for there to be a successful prosecution the court would have to be satisfied of the substantial reliability of the account given by the Claimant’s daughter. If the court was not satisfied of that then it would not have advanced matters to show weaknesses in the account given by the Interested Party.
    8. The decision taken by the Defendant was not the only one which could have been taken but it was a considered and reasoned decision and was well within the range of those rationally open to the Defendant.
    9. It follows that there is no real prospect of the claim succeeding and permission must be refused.
    10. The Defendant is entitled to the costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and I am satisfied that the figure advanced by the Defendant is reasonable and proportionate.