Social Work England -v- SH (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LDS-000041

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

28 February 2024

Before:

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

Between:

The King on the application of
Social Work England

-v-

SH

Order

On an application by Social Work England for orders pursuant to CPR 39.2(3), alternate CPR 39.2(4), 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 Child A or the Defendant and no publication of anything that might lead to their identification.
  2. The application for the claim to be heard in private is on the evidence before the Court, at this time, refused. Liberty to either party to seek to restore at the hearing of the claim.
  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 health, welfare and upbringing of Child A, who was a minor at the relevant time.  The relationship between Child A and the Defendant is set out in the evidence before the Court.  It is therefore necessary for the name of the Defendant and for details of Child A to be before the Court in the evidence and written submissions.  However knowledge of the identity of the Defendant will, given the facts of the case, enable Child A to be identified. 
  2. The information regarding Child A requires 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 Child A given the nature of the allegations.  It is therefore right and proper to make an anonymity order in relation to Child A.  Given the relationship between Child A and the Defendant and given that knowledge of the later fact would allow circumvention of the anonymity order It 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 Child A without the need 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 either party 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.