R -v- JS (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case Number: AC-2024-LDS-000038

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

27 February 2024

Before:
Her Honour Judge Claire Jackson

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Between:
The King
on the application of Social Work England
-v-
JS

Anonymity Order

On an application by Social Work England for orders pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), alternate CPR 39.2(3), and CPR 5.4C(2)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by Her Honour Judge Claire Jackson sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) there shall be no publication of the name of the Defendant or her children and no publication of anything that might lead to their identification.
  2. The application for anonymity orders for the Defendant’s former partner and Suffolk County Council employees and for a hearing in private are on the evidence before the Court, at this time, dismissed.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(2) the parties shall be given 14 days’ notice of any application by a non-party to obtain documents in the claim, other than the claim form, judgment or order, prior to such application being considered by the Court. The parties have permission in such event to respond to the application by way of witness statements.

Reasons

  1. The claim will require the Court to consider matters relating to the Defendant and her children, three of whom at the relevant time were minors. It is therefore necessary for the names of the Defendant and the children to be before the Court in the evidence and written submissions.
  2. Whilst the information regarding the Defendant is not of itself sufficient for the Court to make an anonymity order, the information regarding the children does require an order pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) as it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the interests of the children given the nature of the allegations. It is therefore right and proper to make an anonymity order in relation to the children. Given the relationship between the children and the Defendant, and that this relationship is an important fact in the issues before the Court, it is accepted that the children could then be identified if an anonymity order was not also made in relation to the Defendant. It therefore follows that such an order should also be made in relation to the Defendant.
  3. At this time the order made at paragraph 1 should be sufficient to safeguard the identities of the Defendant’s children without the need for further anonymity orders or for the hearing to be heard in private. This decision has been made on the facts as they presently stand before the Court. Should such facts change then this order does not prevent the Claimant from renewing their application at the hearing of the claim.
  4. Given the information which is before the Court and the order at paragraph 1 hereof the need for an order under CPR 5.4C(2) is self evident.