YSA v Associated Newspapers Ltd
[2023] UKUT 75 (IAC)
YSA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
8 December 2022
[2023] UKUT 74 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
Two lawyers worried about bad press after representing someone in court wanted their names kept secret. The judge said no, because open court is important, and the lawyers hadn't shown they were really in danger.
Key Facts
- •Two barristers, Mr. Toal and Ms. Dirie, sought anonymity to prevent publication of their identities as representatives of YSA, an appellant in an immigration appeal.
- •The application was supported by the Bar Council and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association.
- •The barristers cited concerns about intimidation and harassment due to the nature of the case and media coverage.
- •The Interested Party (a newspaper) opposed the application, arguing for open justice and freedom of expression.
- •The Secretary of State made no submissions.
Legal Principles
Tribunals have the power to anonymise legal representatives.
Rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Anonymity orders require 'intense scrutiny' of human rights infringements, application of s 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and consideration of the interests of others.
Re S [2004] UKHL 47
Open justice and the public interest in reporting proceedings in open court are strong principles.
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
Article 6 ECHR (right to a public trial), Articles 8 and 10 ECHR (right to private and family life, freedom of expression) are relevant.
ECHR
Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression, especially in journalistic material.
s 12 Human Rights Act 1998
The 'cab rank rule' requires barristers to accept any brief, but its maintenance is not the Tribunal's responsibility.
Bar Standards Board Conduct Rules
Outcomes
The application for anonymity was refused.
The barristers failed to demonstrate a sufficient risk of harm to justify the interference with the Interested Party's right to freedom of expression. The potential interference with the barristers' Article 8 rights was deemed unlikely to be considerable and could be addressed through other means. The public interest in open justice significantly outweighed the barristers' concerns.