Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor v IAB & Ors, R (on the application of)

The duty of candour in judicial review is a duty to explain the reasoning behind the challenged decision. A public authority which relies on disclosed documents ordinarily fails to discharge that duty if, without good and specific reason, it redacts civil servants’ names as a matter of routine.

Names may reveal a document’s provenance, context and significance. Their removal can impair intelligibility and frustrate effective judicial scrutiny. Redaction may nevertheless be justified where material concerns an entirely different subject, or where national security, confidentiality or a real risk to personal safety requires protection. Contact details may usually be removed. Civil servants below the Senior Civil Service have no general right to anonymity merely because of their grade.

The Secretaries of State disclosed more than 500 pages in judicial review proceedings challenging regulations concerning houses in multiple occupation used for asylum accommodation. They routinely redacted the names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service, while leaving most senior officials’ names visible.

Swift J held that the claimants were entitled to documents without those redactions: [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin). He concluded that names should be removed only where necessary for a good and sufficient reason. The Secretaries of State appealed.

The central issue was whether a public authority may routinely redact the names of non-senior civil servants from documents disclosed to discharge the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings.

1. Appeal dismissed. A defendant in judicial review proceedings does not fulfil its duty of candour if, save for good and specific reasons, it discloses documents with civil servants’ names redacted. Bean LJ gave the judgment, with which Males and Lewis LJJ agreed.

2. The duty of candour imposes a very high obligation on a public authority to give a full and accurate explanation of the facts relevant to the issues. It is an obligation of explanation, which may be discharged through witness statements, relevant documents, or both. Where the authority chooses disclosure, the documents are presumed to have been disclosed because they are relevant.

3. The principles governing the concealment of irrelevant information in ordinary civil litigation did not justify routine redaction in judicial review. Ordinary disclosure under rule 31.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not carry the equivalent obligation to explain the significance of documents. The duty of candour makes the provenance, context and intelligibility of disclosed material especially important.

4. A policy covering about 98% of civil servants was extraordinarily broad. Names identifying participants in meetings and the senders, recipients or copied recipients of emails can assist the court in understanding a decision-making process. Routine removal can produce barely intelligible documents and create a risk that their significance will be missed. Substitution of ciphers can add labour, complexity and opportunities for error.

5. Civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service have no general entitlement to anonymity in judicial review proceedings. The asserted expectation of confidentiality was unsupported by the Government’s own guidance and could not justify routine redaction. Concerns about harassment or a chilling effect did not establish a sufficiently general risk. A general right of anonymity would require primary legislation.

6. Redaction remains permissible for good and specific reasons. Examples include material addressing a wholly different subject, national security concerns, and evidence of a real risk to an individual’s safety. Contact details may usually be removed. The evidence in this case did not justify routine removal of names.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Secretaries of State’s appeal was dismissed unanimously: [2024] EWCA Civ 66.

2. High Court, Administrative Court: Swift J held that routine redaction of civil servants’ names was impermissible and ordered disclosure without those redactions. He granted permission to appeal because the case raised an important issue of practice and procedure: [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin).