A & B v Persons Unknown

Anonymity for adult offenders who committed grave crimes as children is an exceptional remedy. It requires absolute necessity, convincing evidence of serious risk, and intense scrutiny of the competing ECHR rights. A future risk to articles 2 and 3 does not automatically prevail over freedom of expression. A permanent injunction may be granted where disclosure would create grave risks of physical or psychological harm and seriously undermine rehabilitation.

Two brothers, identified as A and B, were convicted as children of very serious offences in the Edlington case. Their identities had been protected under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, but that protection was due to lapse when B reached adulthood.

They sought a permanent injunction restraining publication of their former and current identities, addresses and identifying information. The issues were whether anonymity was necessary and proportionate, and whether the proceedings could retrospectively be issued anonymously.

1. Permanent injunction granted. Publication or broadcasting of information capable of identifying either claimant was prohibited.
2. Under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, particular regard had to be given to freedom of expression. Anonymity could be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where absolutely necessary. The evidence had to convincingly demonstrate a serious risk of grave physical harm or death.
3. A future risk to articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR did not automatically trump article 10. The court had to intensively compare the competing rights and apply proportionality. The evidence established serious risks of physical and psychological harm, damage to rehabilitation, and harm to family members if the claimants were identified.
4. Publication of only the former identities would not adequately protect the claimants, since it could prompt a search for their new identities and expose third parties to harm. The risks outweighed the public interest in identifying persons convicted of serious crimes.
5. Under CPR Part 39.2(4) and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the claimants were permitted retrospectively to issue proceedings as A and B, with their addresses care of their solicitors.

First-instance decision. No appeal is stated in the judgment.