Yalland & Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Departure from open justice requires strict justification. A party seeking anonymity must establish, by clear and cogent evidence, that non-disclosure is necessary to protect the interests of the party or the administration of justice. The court must balance the competing rights and interests, including open justice, freedom of expression and any demonstrated risk to personal safety. Public law claimants should normally identify themselves, but an anonymity order may be justified where there is a real risk of violence or criminal conduct, publication of names would add little to public understanding, and anonymity is the least restrictive means of avoiding the risk.

Four claimants in public law proceedings sought anonymity after threats had been made in closely related litigation and a communication had been sent to one of their barristers. An earlier interim anonymity order had been made, and media organisations opposed its continuation, relying on open justice and freedom of expression. The court considered the evidence of threats, the claimants’ personal characteristics and the information already in the public domain. The central issue was whether the risk to the claimants’ safety justified restricting publication of their names.

1. The court continued the anonymity order. The administration of justice must ordinarily be open to public scrutiny, and this principle is closely linked to freedom of the press and other media.