OXD -v- Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/1718/2022

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

20 June 2022


The Honourable Mrs Justice Hill


The Queen on the application of


Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police

UPON considering the Claimant’s application for anonymity dated 11 May 2022 and the Claimant’s claim for judicial review
AND UPON consideration of the Claimant’s right to lifelong anonymity
PURSUANT TO section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill

1. There be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the Claimant’s by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to OXD.
2. The address of the Claimant be stated in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings as the address of the Claimant’s solicitors.
3. To the extent necessary to protect the Claimant’s identity, any other references, whether to persons or places or otherwise, be adjusted appropriately with permission of the parties.
4. In so far as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address already filed in the proceedings be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above.
5. The alleged perpetrators of the assaults on the Claimant to be named as AB, CD, EF, etc according to the number of perpetrators identified.
6. The original of any such document disclosing the names or addresses of the Claimant or the alleged perpetrators are to be noted on the Court’s electronic file and any hard copy file as subject to this anonymity and not to be accessed without the permission of a Judge, Master or District Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division.
7. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Master or a District Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service. The file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”.
8. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant or alleged perpetrators. The publication of the name and addresses of the Claimant or of any member of the Claimant’s immediate family or the alleged perpetrators is prohibited.
9. The Defendant may apply under rule 23.10 to have this Order set aside or varied.
10. Any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have the Order set aside or varied.
11. Costs in the case.


1. The Claimant has a right to lifelong anonymity pursuant to section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
2. It appears that the case may attract publicity and that revealing the identity of the Claimant, such that publication of the Claimant’s identity ought to be prohibited.
3. The third parties involved, namely the alleged perpetrators, also require anonymity to prevent prejudice to any potential criminal investigations or proceedings.
4. Having considered the above interests of the Claimant and the alleged perpetrators, which are protected by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, which includes the right of access to information, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identities of the Claimants and the alleged perpetrators is strictly necessary in order to protect their interests; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of their identities to justify interfering with their Article 8 rights.
5. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that non-disclosure of the identities of the Claimant and the alleged perpetrators is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect their interests.

Consent order

UPON THE Claimant having issued an application for Judicial Review on 13 May 2022 challenging the Defendant’s decision dated 16 February 2022;
AND UPON the Defendant confirming on 31 May 2022 that they would withdraw their decision of 16 February 2022;
AND UPON the Defendant confirming that a fresh decision will be made within a reasonable timeframe of withdrawal, and provided to the Claimant in writing


1. The Claimant’s claim for Judicial Review issued on 13 May 2022 against the Defendant be withdrawn.
2. The Claimant’s claim for damages against the Defendant in this claim be transferred to the Mayors and City of London County Court. The Claim for damages to be stayed pending the new decision and any potential subsequent investigation arising from the Defendant’s new decision.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant’s costs of this action to be assessed if not agreed.
4. There be Legal Aid detailed assessment of the Claimant’s publicly funded costs in accordance with the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.