LXP -v- The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1419/2023

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

27 June 2023

Before:

Sir Duncan Ouseley sitting as a High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
LXP

-v-

The Central Criminal Court of England and Wales

and

The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
(interested party)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for permission, anonymity, a private hearing and other directions
Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review, and other applications (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Interested Party and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by SIR DUNCAN OUSELEY sitting as a High Court Judge

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed in court as a “rolled-up hearing”, on notice to the Defendant and Interested Party. If permission to apply for judicial review is granted at that hearing, the Court will proceed immediately to determine the substantive claim.
  2. The application shall be heard before the end of July 2023, if at all possible. Time estimate one day. If the parties disagree with that estimate, they should inform the Admin Ct Office within 7 days of the date of this order, with their alternatives.
  3. The application for a private hearing pursuant to CPR39.2(4) is adjourned to start of the rolled-up hearing.
  4. There shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the Claimant or any other information that could lead to the Claimant being identified as the Claimant in these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as LXP, and the case so listed, and any other details which, on their own or together with other information publicly available, may lead to the identification of the Claimant shall be redacted before publication.
  5. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be reconsidered by the Court at an appropriate stage in the rolled-up hearing.
  6. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C and 5.4D:
    a. A person who is not a party to, or Interested Party in, the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with paragraph 3 above (subject to sub-paragraph 3(b) below).
    b. If a person who is not a party to, or Interested Party in, the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR 5.4C and 5.4D) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any non-anonymised statement of case, judgment or order, or any other document or communication, from the Court records such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the parties and Interested Party.
  7. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on [date of this Order] and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
  8. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on 7 days’ notice to the parties and Interested Party.
  9. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the ‘Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders’ issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.
  10. Paragraphs 6-9 shall be reconsidered by the Court at an appropriate stage in the rolled-up hearing.
  11. The Claimant may rely on his response to the IP’s summary grounds and response to the various applications.

Observations

  1. I regard a rolled-up hearing as the quickest and most effective way of reaching a decision on the best way to resolve the various issues arising out of the lawful operation of the warrant. The Court may wish to focus first on what order, if any, should be made on the basis that the Claimant is a journalist and the seized material includes journalistic material.
  2. I am not persuaded that the order for a private hearing has been made out, but regard that as a matter which the Court hearing the case is better able to resolve.
  3. There is a stronger case for anonymity, although with details which may reported it may become unrealistic, and the price of anonymity may prove too great; but that is best judged by the Court hearing the matter. This order holds the ring until then.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Claimant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for Judicial Review is granted
  2. The Interested Party and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 7 days of the date of this order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  3. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 3 days of the date on which the Interested Party serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
  4. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  5. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. The Interested Party, and the Defendant if participating, must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than 2 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  8. Liberty to apply to vary these directions.

THIS CASE MUST BE HEARD BY A DIVISIONAL COURT