NBS -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and others (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/1888/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
26 May 2022
The Honourable Mr Justice Fordham
on the application of NBS
(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth and Development Affairs
(3) Secretary of State for Defence
On an application by Form N463
Following consideration of the claim documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Fordham
1. Subject to paragraph 2 and pending further Order of the Court, pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the names of the Claimant and Interested Parties (the Claimant’s family members), nor of Judges A, B, C, X, Y and Z (identified in the claim).
2. Liberty to any person to apply, on notice to the Claimant’s and Defendants’ solicitors, to vary or discharge paragraph 1.
3. The Defendants shall have until 4pm on Monday 13 June 2022 to file and serve any Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds.
4. The Administrative Court Office will place the papers before a Judge for consideration as an urgent paper application as soon as practicable from 10am Monday 20 June 2022.
5. The Claimant’s representatives shall by 4pm on Friday 7 June 2022 file redacted copies of the claim form and grounds for judicial review, which could be accessed from the court file without risk to the anonymity protection in this Order.
1. Anonymity. I am satisfied that a protective and precautionary anonymity order at the outset satisfies the test of necessity. The nature and scope of the order and arrangements can be revisited and kept under review. Careful consideration will need to be given to open justice and access to redacted court documents. Careful thought will need to be given to what and how much need be said in open court about anyone to whom protection is applicable.
2. Directions. I have looked at the timetable that the Claimant’s representatives were trying to achieve, starting with consideration by this Court within 72 hours. The Court has done better than that. The AOS is important and 5 days is unrealistic. There were four rounds of pre-action correspondence, each with a response within about a week. The Defendants are forewarned, however, and can hit the ground running in this case. I am satisfied that the deadline of 4pm 13.6.22 is fair and appropriate, and strikes the right balance. The window from then to 10am 20.6.22 allows for any ‘reply’ to be supplied speedily and the Claimant’s representatives can liaise with the Court. Such replies are put before a paper Judge whose decision it is whether to allow it to be relied on. No ‘reply’ order is necessary or appropriate. Nor is it appropriate to set a deadline for a judge to consider the papers.