SA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Court of Appeal refused an application by Associated Newspapers Ltd to discharge anonymity and reporting restrictions that had been made in earlier tribunal and Court of Appeal proceedings concerning SA. The court applied the established presumption of open justice and carried out the required Article 8/Article 10 balancing exercise, giving weight to authorities including Tickle and PMC on open justice and to Re S on intense balancing of Convention rights. The court found that earlier factual justifications for anonymity based on claims of sexual assault or trafficking had been undermined by findings that the appellant's earlier account was false, but that the remaining and decisive justification was the real and serious risk to SA's psychological stability if identified.

The medical evidence before the court (reports from a consultant clinical psychologist and consultant neurologist) established that SA suffers from a chronic, incurable schizo-affective disorder, has lacked litigation capacity for years, and that exposure to adverse publicity had previously precipitated severe psychiatric relapse. On the evidence then available the court concluded that the risk of serious deterioration in SA's mental health outweighed the public interest in identification and disclosure of unredacted tribunal materials, and therefore refused (i) the application to lift the Court of Appeal anonymity order (with the effect that the Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal anonymity orders remain in force), and (ii) the application for unredacted disclosure of the First-tier Tribunal judgment and of SA's evidential material, while permitting release of skeleton arguments subject to redactions consistent with the anonymity orders.

Background and procedural posture:

• The issue arose in the context of proceedings in which the Secretary of State had revoked the appellant's refugee status; the Upper Tribunal and this Court had dealt with appeals arising from that revocation (the Court previously dismissed an appeal in relation to the revocation: [2025] EWCA Civ 257).
• Associated Newspapers Ltd applied to discharge all anonymity orders made in the revocation appeal proceedings (anonymity orders made in the First-tier Tribunal on 1 September 2023 pursuant to rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (IAC) Rules 2014, the Upper Tribunal order of 15 April 2024 under rule 14 of the Upper Tribunal Rules, and the Court of Appeal anonymity direction made on 9 August 2024).

Nature of the application: ANL sought (i) discharge of the anonymity orders and (ii) disclosure under the principles in Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring of an unredacted First-tier Tribunal decision, evidence filed by SA before the FtT, and the parties’ skeleton arguments.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the strong presumption of open justice and free expression under Article 10 ECHR was displaced by a countervailing Article 8 ECHR interest in privacy and by the need to protect SA's health and the proper administration of justice.
• Whether the factual foundations relied on to justify anonymity (including a claimed entitlement to lifetime anonymity under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992) remained in place given findings that SA's earlier account was false.
• Whether ANL should receive unredacted tribunal materials and SA's evidential material.

Court’s reasoning and findings:

• The court reaffirmed the primacy of open justice and the heavy burden on the party seeking derogation from it, citing authorities including Tickle and PMC and Guidance on anonymity in asylum and immigration cases.
• Although earlier tribunals had justified anonymity partly on the basis that SA alleged forced child marriage and related sexual offences or trafficking, the court accepted that those factual foundations had been undermined by later findings that the account was false; the judge declined to resolve subsidiary legal questions such as the correct scope of section 1(1) of the 1992 Act or the EAT decision in Ajao.
• The decisive justification for continuing anonymity was the risk to SA’s mental health: contemporaneous and prior medical evidence (consultant clinical psychologist and consultant neurologist) established chronic schizo-affective disorder, prior psychiatric hospitalisation and detention under the Mental Health Act, lack of capacity to litigate, and a documented link between adverse publicity and severe psychiatric relapse including psychosis and suicidality.
• The court refused an adjournment to obtain updated medical evidence because the Court of Protection order and the existing expert material were sufficient to decide the application and there was no adequate excuse for late request.
• The court balanced Article 8 and Article 10 rights with an intense focus on comparative importance and concluded the risk to SA’s psychological integrity outweighed the public interest in identification at that time; accordingly the anonymity orders remained in force and unredacted disclosure of the FtT judgment and SA’s evidence was refused, although redacted skeletons and redacted judgments could be provided.

Wider context: the court noted the high threshold required to displace open justice and that each case depends on its facts; the court recorded that it was persuaded by focused medical evidence that the harm to SA would be very serious and that the anonymity orders should remain for the time being.

The Court refused the application to discharge the anonymity and reporting restrictions. Although some earlier factual bases for anonymity (claims of sexual assault/trafficking) had been undermined by subsequent findings, the court held that a substantial and proportionate reason remained: the real risk of serious psychological harm to SA if identified. On the medical evidence and applying the Article 8/Article 10 balancing exercise the court concluded that maintaining anonymity and refusing unredacted disclosure of SA’s tribunal evidence was necessary and proportionate.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) UI-2023-004680. The Court had earlier (in a related appeal about the revocation) handed down a reserved judgment dismissing an appeal: [2025] EWCA Civ 257. First-tier Tribunal decision promulgated 1 September 2023; Upper Tribunal order 15 April 2024; Court of Appeal anonymity direction made 9 August 2024. Associated Newspapers Ltd applied to discharge those anonymity orders and for disclosure; this Court refused the application on 1 August 2025.