LYC -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-BHM-000267

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 July 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Between:

The King
on the application of
LYC
(by his Litigation Friend, LYM)
(Claimant)

-v-

The Director of Public Prosecutions
(Defendant)

and

Cannock Youth Court
(Interested Party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

  1. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identities of the Claimant, the Litigation Friend, the Claimant’s family members and the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings, their addresses or any matter likely to lead to their identification:
    (a) Shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court;
    (b) Shall be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public and pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
  2. The Claimant shall be referred to as LYC in these proceedings. The Litigation Friend shall be referred to as LYM.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4) 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, the Litigation Friend, the Claimant’s family members and the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings. If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to their identification, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time.
  4. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, 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 completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant, the Litigation Friend, the Claimant’s family members and the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
  5. The Claimant, having filed his Claim Form along with the permission bundle, shall serve the same upon both the Defendant and Interested Party by 4pm on 17 July 2026.
  6. The Defendant shall file his Acknowledgment of Service within 21days and no later than 4pm 7 August 2026.
  7. Should the Interested Party choose to file an Acknowledgment of Service this shall be filed within 21 days and no later than 4pm on 7 August 2026.
  8. The Claimant will file any reply to the Acknowledgment(s) of Service within 14 working days and no later than 4pm on 21 August 2026.
  9. The papers shall be placed before a judge for consideration of permission at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term, 2026 and in any event no later than 16 October 2026.
  10. Costs in the case.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is a minor who is now 14 years old and was 11 years old at the time of the relevant incident. He has been charged with rape of a child under the age of 13. The Claimant seeks to challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute him on the grounds centring on a failure to consider relevant factors and procedural error. The Claimant applies for anonymity orders and for expedition of the claim.
  2. An order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary.
  3. With respect to the application for anonymity, the Claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.1(2)(d). The Claimant is a minor aged 14 years old and this case relates to an incident when he was 11 years old. The incident relates to sexual offending, in respect of which the Claimant has automatic anonymity in the Youth Court pursuant to section 49 Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Further, some elements of the incident relate to him as a victim of a sexual offence and therefore, in respect of those details, he is also entitled to anonymity pursuant to Section 1 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The victim of the incident is his sister, who similarly is entitled to anonymity under Section 1 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, and also has the benefit of an automatic order in the Youth Court.
  4. In the circumstances, privacy is necessary to protect the interests of a protected party and other minors and to ensure consistency between the different forums having regard to the relevant statutory regimes. Having regard to the particular importance of the principle of open justice and the Art 8 and Art 10 rights engaged, the anonymity order granted is the minimum necessary derogation from the principle of open justice to achieve this. In circumstances where the Litigation Friend for the Claimant is his mother, permitting the disclosure of the identity of the Litigation Friend would inevitably lead to the disclosure of the identity of the Claimant, defeating the purposes of the anonymity order in respect of the Claimant. The same is true with respect to any disclosure or publication of the identities of the Claimant’s family members and the identity of the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings.
  5. With respect to expedition, the claim relates to ongoing criminal proceedings and there is a trial listed at the Cannock Youth Court on 6 November 2026. In circumstances where the challenge relates to the decision to charge the Claimant, it is desirable for the question of permission to be dealt with before the commencement of the criminal trial. In addition, the criminal proceedings involve, in addition to the Claimant, two other children. In such circumstances, in addition to the public interest in Youth Court proceedings being dealt with swiftly, it is important for the children involved in this particular case that the criminal proceedings adhere to their current timetable. In these circumstances, it is necessary to timetable the claim so as to allow permission to be considered and determined at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term, 2026.

Signed: Mr Justice MacDonald