PW -v- Plymouth City Council (anonymity order and application for judicial review)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim Number: AC-2024-CDF-000141

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 August 2024

Before:
His Honour Judge Keyser KC
sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:
The King
on the application of PW
-v-
Plymouth City Council
and
LL (interested parties)

Order

UPON the claim for judicial review

AND UPON the Claimant’s applications for urgent consideration, abridgment of the time for filing an acknowledgment of service, legal representation at public expense, and anonymity

AND UPON the Court considering that the claim concerns the welfare of children and that the interests of those children justify taking steps to prevent the identity of their parents being published

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The identity of the Claimant and of the Interested Party be not disclosed.
  2. The Claimant and the Interested Party be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “PW” and LL respectively.
  3. 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 Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service.
  4. Reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant or Interested Party or any child of either of them. The publication of the name and address of the Claimant or of the Interested Party or any member of their immediate families is prohibited.
  5. The application for expedition and abridgment of time for filing an acknowledgment of service is refused.
  6. The application for the provision of legal representation at public expense is refused.
  7. The Defendant may apply under rule 23.10 to have this Order set aside or varied.
  8. Any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Order set aside or varied.

Reasons

(1) The Claimant has required that his application be considered by someone other than me, on the basis that I dismissed an earlier claim of his and he is seeking permission to appeal. That is no reason why I should not consider applications in these proceedings. The Claimant is not entitled to choose his judges.
(2) This case concerns the welfare of children. Anonymity and reporting restrictions are justified in the interests of the protection of the children.
(3) However, no justification for expedition or abridgment of time has been shown. The Defendant has been considering the welfare of the Claimant’s son, and there is no sufficient reason to think that its decisions have placed the child at imminent risk. The fact that the present application was not brought until after more than three weeks after the decision in question tends to belie the claimed urgency.
(4) There is no present basis for supposing that the Claimant lacks capacity, as distinct from legal expertise, and it is noted that he has conducted proceedings in the Family Court in person.
(5) It is noted that Ground 2 appears hopeless. The fact that section 100(4) was mentioned instead of section 100A(4) is immaterial. It is the existence of the power that matters.