May 30, 2024

MAN -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024 – LON-001760

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

30 May 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Freedman

Between:

R (on the application of MAN)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

UPON the application of the Claimant for anonymity

IT IS ORDERED:

Warning: If you do not obey this order, you may be held in contempt of court and you may be imprisoned, fined or your assets may be seized.

1. Pursuant to s 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, until further order the publication in connection with these proceedings of the name of the Claimant, or any particulars or details likely to lead to his identification, is prohibited.

2. This case shall be known as ‘R (upon the application of MAN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as ‘MAN’.

3. Pursuant to CPR Rules r.5.4C and r.5.4D, unless the Court grants permission no non-party may obtain a copy of any statement of case, order or judgment, or any other document unless it has been redacted. If an application is made by any person pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(2) or (6), the Court shall give notice to the Claimant of the application.

4. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 30 May 2024 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.”

5. 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 2 working days’ notice to both the Claimant and the Defendant’s representatives. If such an application is sought to be made by a non-party, the Court shall give notice to the Claimant of the application.

Order

UPON READING the Claim Form and the Statement of Facts and Grounds filed on 23 May 2024

AND UPON the Claimants’ application for urgent consideration filed on 23 May 2024

AND UPON considering the application on the papers

AND UPON noting that the Claimant is anonymised by a separate order

AND UPON READING a letter from the solicitors for the Claimant sent by email dated 29 May 2024 stating that
(1) The Defendant has confirmed at 12.20pm on 29 May 2024 that the public order disqualification decisions (“POD Decisions”) under challenge in this and a related case (MAN) had been withdrawn;
(2) It was nonetheless contended that the claim remains urgent in that other persons (“tens if not hundreds stand to be affected”) are said to be affected by what is said to be an unpublished policy which contradicts the published policy and which had led to the claim of MAN (and the related claim of LAN);
(3) The Court is still asked to order an urgent directions hearing “so that the court can consider the question of expedition and appropriate directions in light of the Defendant’s explanation as to how the “moment in time” expression came to be used in all of the cases cited in Table 1 of Thomas 1”.

THE COURT MAKES NO ORDER AT THIS STAGE, BUT THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE RENEWAL OF THE PAPER APPLICATION WITH FURTHER INFORMATION

Observations

1. The Court at present will not make an order on the basis of the information before the Court. It deliberately makes no order rather than dismisses any application in that this does not preclude the renewal of the paper application with further information.

2. The concerns of the Court are as follows.

3. In view of the withdrawal of the POD Decisions, there is no longer any purpose in an order that the POD Decisions should be quashed.

4. There is no claim for any other person who is affected by a POD decision for the Court to consider, albeit that Thomas 1 refers to other persons.

5. Even if there is something for the Court to consider, it would be expected that either there would be a new claim form of other persons and/or there might be an application to amend the claim form consequent upon the withdrawals of the POD Decisions.

6. In whatever form it is done, the Court might need to know:
(i) why a claim by MAN (and the related claim of LAN) are not academic and/or why their claims should be allowed to proceed;
(ii) how the relief sought ought to be amended (or if not, why it is satisfactory as it stands);
(iii) whether it is intended that any other persons are to be claimants.

7. In respect of the contention that there is urgency, it may need to be explained why a hearing next week is required without first the matters in paragraph 6 above being addressed. A different timetable may be considered.

8. Without urgency by reference to MAN (or LAN), even if it were justified at all, there needs to be considered if there is any justification for an order against the Defendant to provide information prior to its statement of its case. In the usual way, a claim would be formulated and the Defendant would respond. In an urgent case, the time for filing an Acknowledgment of Service might be brought forward or Summary Grounds of Resistance may be required at an early stage prior to a directions hearing.

9. In the changed circumstances, it will be for the Claimant to seek to justify an order requiring the Defendant to provide information other than in the way described in paragraph 8 above.

10. These are observations only and not decisions of the Court. They are not to be
treated as advice to those represented by the solicitors for the Claimant or indications as to what the Court might order. Insofar as they are current matters of concern, they are not comprehensive nor determinative of what concerns might exist from here onwards of this or any other Judge.