Nicole Daedone & Ors v BBC (No 2)

Applications to restrict open justice must satisfy strict necessity and proportionality requirements. Anonymity is ordered only to the extent necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the applicant’s interests. Courts should prefer targeted measures, such as controlled access and temporary review periods, over blanket reporting or access restrictions. Competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 must be balanced with the public interest in open justice.

The claimants brought defamation proceedings against the BBC concerning its podcast about OneTaste and allegations of serious sexual and criminal misconduct. FLA, who was not a party, said that he was the person referred to as “Jake” in episode 9 and sought anonymity, non-disclosure and restrictions on access to documents and reporting. His own proceedings had already been anonymised.

The application concerned the protection of a non-party from jigsaw identification while preserving public access to the proceedings and court records.

1. Anonymity. The court applied the open justice principle and rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The obligation is one of necessity, not discretion. FLA’s identity was protected because anonymity had already been found necessary in his own claim, and disclosure here could undermine that order and its purpose. The order was limited to withholding his identity and referring to him as FLA.
2. Proportionality. A wider reporting restriction was not necessary. The parties had taken steps to preserve the pseudonyms, and the risk could be managed by a scheme allowing the allegations to be litigated publicly while reducing the risk of jigsaw identification. FLA retained liberty to apply if that proved unworkable.
3. Contempt of Court Act. Since the identity was withheld from the public, the court directed under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that publication of FLA’s true name in connection with the proceedings was prohibited. The order did not prevent use of “Jake” or reporting that a man claiming to be Jake had obtained the order.
4. Court records. Access to the Particulars of Claim was not restricted because they contained no identifying material. A blanket restriction on the Defence was premature and disproportionate. Instead, under rules 5.4C(4) and 3.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the Defence was withheld from non-parties for ten days after filing, allowing FLA’s lawyers to assess whether further relief was required. Notice was also required for non-party applications for other documents.
5. Orders. FLA’s identity was withheld; publication of his true name was prohibited; access to the Defence was delayed for ten days after filing; and notice was required for applications by non-parties for other documents. No penal notice was attached.