PMC v A Local Health Board
[2024] EWHC 2969 (KB)
JWS v JZX
6 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1345 (KB)
High Court
A famous person is being sued for historic sexual abuse. Even though the police didn't charge him, a judge decided to keep his name secret to protect his privacy and business. The judge balanced this with the public's right to know, but felt protecting the accused was more important in this case, especially because there are serious questions about the evidence against him. His name will be revealed only if he loses the case.
Key Facts
- •Anonymity order granted to the defendant in a historic sexual abuse case.
- •Claimant is an alleged victim of historic sexual abuse.
- •Defendant is a well-known public figure.
- •Claim is currently statute-barred.
- •Police investigation concluded with no realistic prospect of conviction.
- •Defendant presented medical evidence of potential health impact from lack of anonymity.
- •Defendant's business interests could be severely damaged by disclosure of identity.
- •Risk of jigsaw identification of the claimant if defendant's anonymity is not granted.
- •Defendant agreed to waive anonymity if the claim is successful.
Legal Principles
Principle of open justice
R(C) v Justice Secretary [2016] UKSC 2
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 10 ECHR (right to freedom of expression)
European Convention on Human Rights
Overriding objective and CPR 1.1
Civil Procedure Rules
Section 6 of the Human Rights Act
Human Rights Act
Outcomes
Anonymity order granted to the defendant.
Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights, considering the sensitive nature of the allegations, potential health impact on the defendant, risk to reputation and business interests, and the risk of jigsaw identification of the claimant. Significant evidential challenges to the claimant's case also weighed in the defendant's favour.