PGL -v- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001425

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

29 April 2024


Mr Justice Johnson


The King on the application of


Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
(named in claim form as Metropolitan Police Services)


On an application by the claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by Mr Justice Johnson


1. Until further order the claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as PGL.

2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as PGL.

3. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C 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 anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as PGL; and (b) that any reference to the names of the Claimant be deleted from those documents.

Application for interim relief

4. The application for interim relief is refused.

Right to apply to set aside paragraphs 1-3

5. Any person affected by paragraphs 1-3 of this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have paragraphs 1-3 of this Order set aside or varied.


6. Costs reserved.


1. The claimant has alleged that she is a victim of a sexual assault. She may be entitled to anonymity pursuant to section 1 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Although she has not made an application for anonymity (and she is entitled to waive her right to anonymity) I have made an order for anonymity on a precautionary basis, it appearing that the non-disclosure of her identity (at least until she has an opportunity to make it clear whether she wishes to waive any right to anonymity) is necessary in order to protect her interests.

2. I am not satisfied that the case is sufficiently urgent to merit the grant of interim relief before the claimant’s application for permission to claim judicial review is considered. Nor do I consider that the claimant has shown a sufficiently strong case on the merits to justify a grant of interim relief. Nor do I consider that the balance of convenience requires the grant of interim relief.

3. As to urgency, the (first) underlying decision was made on 7.1.24 and yet it is only after more than 3 months that this application has been made. The subsequent decisions do not make a material difference – they merely extend the grant of bail and the bail conditions. There is no evidence of any immediate risk to the claimant if she is not granted interim relief.

4. As to merits, the claimant’s case is based on assertion with little evidential support. The primary relief sought amounts to disclosure of material from a live criminal investigation, but the claimant has not identified any legal basis upon which she is entitled to such disclosure. The claimant also seeks an order to “quash the PCN and dismiss the case against [her]” without identifying any basis on which she is entitled to that relief. She further seeks an order requiring the defendant “To refrain from unlawful arrest in the future without evidence and without legal grounds”, but has not identified any evidence of an immediate risk that she might be unlawfully arrested by the defendant or an officer acting under his direction and control.

5. As to the balance of convenience, there is no evidence of any risk of immediate irrevocable harm to the claimant as a result of being subject to bail conditions.

6. The claimant says that she has complied with the pre-action protocol, but has not provided her letter of claim or the Defendant’s response.

7. I note that the postal address given for the Defendant in the Claim Form seems to be inaccurate.