The King on the application of LXD -v- Wimbledon Magistrates Court and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim no. AC-2024-LON-003913

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

29 November 2024

Before:

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
LXD

-v-

Wimbledon Magistrates Court

and

The Metropolitan Police

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

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and reporting restriction

AND UPON the Court considering the claimant’s application for anonymity pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and being satisfied, balancing articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR, that non-disclosure of the claimant’s identity is necessary to protect the interests of the claimant’s daughter

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

  1. The names of the claimant, his wife and his daughter are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher “LXD”.
  2. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the claimant, his wife or daughter, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. The parties must:

a. when filing any statement of case; or
b. in respect of any statement of case filed prior to this Order, within 7 days of this Order;
also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant, his wife or his daughter.

  1. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  2. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an application to the court, served on each party.

Reasons

  1. The claimant is on police bail in relation to an investigation into the possession of indecent photographs of children. The investigation is ongoing but, at least at this stage, he has not been charged with any offence.
  2. By this claim for judicial review the claimant seeks to challenge a decision of Wimbledon Magistrates’ Court refusing the claimant’s application to vary police bail to permit him to have contact with his young daughter which is not supervised or in a public place. The effect of the bail condition is that he is unable to live with his wife and daughter.
  3. The claimant seeks a reporting restriction to prevent the disclosure of his identity and that of his wife and daughter. He submits that his identification, given the nature of the case, will have the effect of indirectly identifying his daughter, and that a reporting restriction is necessary to protect the article 8 rights of himself, his wife and his daughter.
  4. The claimant’s article 8 rights are plainly engaged, as are the article 8 rights of his wife and daughter, as the claim concerns his ability to live in his home with them. Identification of the claimant would indirectly identify his wife and young daughter (variously described in the papers as 4 or 6 years old), not least as they share the same surname.
  5. There is a strong public interest in open justice and I have weighed in the balance against those article 8 rights, the public’s article 10 rights. I have borne in mind that this claim seeks to challenge a decision that was made at a public hearing at which the claimant’s identity was not subject to a reporting restriction, albeit everyone in court carefully refrained from identifying the claimant’s daughter.
  6. In my judgment, in circumstances where the claimant has not (at least yet) been charged with any offence, and given the likely detrimental impact on the claimant’s daughter, in particular, of publicity regarding alleged offences of this nature, I consider that it is necessary to make the orders sought to protect their interests. Although the decision under challenge was at a hearing at which he was named, the publicity attendant on such a hearing is likely to be minimal compared to the likely publicity if the claimant were to be identified in this claim.