MN -v- Secretary of State for Justice (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002554

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

27 September 2023

Before:

Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
MN (By his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

-v-

Secretary of State for Justice

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
ORDER by Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. No order as to costs.
  3. The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r 39.2(4) and/or the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Claimant in this action shall have anonymity until further order. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Claimant. Pursuant to CPR r.5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court records, only if the statement of case, judgment or order from the court has been anonymised. In the case title, the Claimant’s name shall be replaced by the initials ‘MN’ and the Claimant’s father (who has provided a witness statement) by the initials ‘AN’. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of Court proceedings.

Reasons

  1. The Secretary of State has correctly applied the guidance given by the House of Lords in R(L) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] UKHL 68; [2009] 1 A.C. 588, particularly in the speech of Lord Brown at paragraphs [107] and [108]. The Defendant was entitled to leave it to the appointed investigator to decide what role the family will play, whether hearings should be in public, whether witnesses need to be compelled to attend, in which case the presently intended form of investigation may need to be reconsidered.
  2. I do not understand the Secretary of State to be seeking to fetter the investigator’s discretion in those regards. Had that happened, then the situation would arguably be different.
  3. The Claimant’s family’s concerns are understandable: in the circumstances I do not regard it as appropriate to order the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs.