R on the application of BLZ -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case no: AC-2023-LON-002487

In the matter of an application for judicial review and interim relief

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

23 August 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Yip DBE

Between:

The King
(on the application of BLZ)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

and

(1) Local Authority A
(2) Local Authority B
(interested parties)

Case no: AC-2023-LON-003699

Between:

The King
(on the application of BLZ)

-v-

Local Authority B

and

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Local Authority C
(interested parties)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

ANONYMITY ORDER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

UPON consideration of the Claimant’s application to amend the Anonymity Orders made respectively by Bourne J dated 25 August 2023 (AC-2023-LON-002487) (‘the Schedule 10 claim’) and Lane J dated 14 December 2023 (AC-2023-LON-003699) (‘the Care Act claim’) (together ‘the two claims’).

IT IS ORDERED:

  1. Subject to further order, the Anonymity Orders of Bourne J dated 25 August 2023 (“the Schedule 10 claim”) and Lane J dated 14 December 2023 (“the Care Act claim”) are to be replaced as follows:
    a. In both claims, the identities of the Claimant and the Defendant and Interested Party Local Authorities shall not be published.

    b. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant, the name of the Defendant and Interested Party Local Authorities, the name or address of any of the Claimant’s family members, or any other matters which could lead to their identification.

    c. There to be substituted for all purposes in the two claims, in place of reference, whether orally in writing:

    (i) The Claimant by name, reference to the letters “BLZ”;
    (ii) [Local Authority A] shall be referred to as ‘Local Authority A’;
    (iii) [Local Authority B] shall be referred to as ‘Local Authority B’;
    (iv) [Local Authority C] shall be referred to as ‘Local Authority C’.

    d. No reference shall be made, whether orally or in writing, to the following identifying factors:

    (i) the name of the asylum accommodation in which the Claimant has resided since 20 December 2023 in the area of the Second Local Authority, reference instead to be made to ‘the Hotel’;
    (ii) the name of either local authority area;
    (iii) the location of the Hotel;
    e. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C, reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant.
  2. The Claimant’s representatives shall prepare a short summary setting out the nature of the claims to be considered at the hearing listed on 3 September 2024 and of the reasons that it is said to be necessary to restrain the disclosure of the identity of the Local Authorities concerned and of the name and location of the Hotel. The summary shall be in a form that complies with the terms of paragraph 1 of this Order but shall provide sufficient information to allow any person who may seek to challenge the anonymity order to understand the issues involved.
  3. The summary directed under paragraph 3 shall be:
    a. Sent to the Defendants and Interested Parties inviting any proposed amendments.
    b. Filed with the Court and served upon the Press Association no later than 10am on 30 August 2024.
    c. Made available to any interested person upon request to the Claimant’s representatives and/or the Court.
  4. The Court shall reconsider the anonymity order and the terms thereof at the hearing on 3 September 2024.
  5. Any representative of the media or other interested person who wishes to make representations on the anonymity order at the hearing shall put the parties and the Court on notice of the intention to do so.
  6. A copy of this order in anonymised form shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.
  7. Liberty to apply in relation to the terms of this Order.  

    Reasons

    1. This matter concerns two claims that are due to be heard at a hearing commencing on 3 September 2024 with a time estimate of three days. The broad subject matter is the Claimant’s care and accommodation needs.
    2. The Claimant is a foreign national who was granted leave to remain in the UK. He has a medical disability. He is a convicted sex offender. The claimant is currently accommodated in asylum accommodation.
    3. Anonymity orders protecting the identity of the Claimant have already been made in the claims. Following the recent violent disorder across the country, the Claimant’s representatives applied to extend the anonymity order to strengthen the protection afforded to the Claimant and those accommodated alongside him.
    4. The terms of the order proposed by the Claimant, which I have adopted for the time being, restrains disclosure of the identity of the Local Authorities involved. This is an unusually restrictive order. It is said to be necessary to protect the identity and current location of the Claimant given the current climate of unrest. Insofar as they have responded, the Defendants and Interested Parties have taken a neutral stance.
    5. I take the view that the extent of anonymity in this matter should be considered by the judge conducting the substantive hearing. He or she will have a better understanding of the issues than I currently do. The order sought (and which I make for the time being) places a significant restriction on open justice. I do not consider it appropriate to make such an order without providing the opportunity for the media and other interested persons to make representations. That requires that sufficient information is made available that anyone who wishes to challenge the terms of the order may do so.
    6. In any event, the judge conducting the hearing will no doubt wish to review the terms of the anonymity order and to consider the extent to which it is workable. I note that the Claimant’s application stated that it would be “impossible” to avoid reference to the relevant location and local authority areas given the issues to be considered. I am not convinced that the terms set out at paragraph 1 can remain as they are. In short, the anonymity order requires very careful consideration beyond that which I can properly give by way of a paper application.
    7. Given the short timescale until the listed hearing, I have dealt with this application on an urgent basis and have not considered it appropriate to direct a hearing before 3 September. My intention is that the order I have made will provide short-term protection and allow for proper consideration of the position at that hearing.