PPT v Independent Television News Limited & Anor

Open justice is the starting point for court hearings, party identification and access to judgments. A derogation, including anonymity or a reporting restriction, requires a sufficiently powerful justification and must be strictly necessary. The person seeking it must provide clear and cogent evidence, and the court must consider whether a less restrictive measure would suffice. Each proposed restriction requires separate justification. An anonymity order may still protect a person even where some people can speculate about their identity. Further restrictions are not justified merely because they could provide additional protection; the evidence must establish that they are necessary and proportionate.

The claimant, identified publicly as PPT, seeks a final injunction to prevent two media organisations, Independent Television News Limited and Guardian News & Media Limited, from publishing allegations about his conduct. He says publication would expose him to a continuing risk of serious harm or death. The merits of that claim, including the psychiatric evidence, remain for trial.

This judgment determined applications concerning anonymity and open justice. The claimant sought to remain anonymous and also asked the court to withhold the defendants’ identities, arguing that this would strengthen his own anonymity. After a private hearing, the court considered whether each requested derogation was necessary and proportionate. It also gave directions for any later application to hold trial material privately.

1. Disposition. The claimant’s identity was to remain withheld, and he was to be identified publicly as PPT. The court refused the application to withhold the defendants’ identities. Questions about the conduct and reporting of the trial were reserved for the pre-trial review.

2. Open justice and the legal threshold. Open justice is a fundamental constitutional principle. Its purposes include public scrutiny of the courts, confidence in the administration of justice and media reporting: A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2015] AC 588. Party identification is itself important because names give reports context: JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1645. Under Civil Procedure Rules r. 39.2(4), identity must be withheld only where non-disclosure is necessary for the proper administration of justice and to protect the person’s interests. The court also referred to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as permitting a publication prohibition where needed to serve the purpose for which information was withheld.

3. Separate, evidence-based justification. The court must give very substantial weight to open justice. The applicant bears the burden of providing clear and cogent evidence; each proposed derogation must be justified separately, and the court must consider less restrictive measures and the impact on open justice: Tickle v Surrey County Council [2025] Fam 105; PMC v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board [2026] KB 209; Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [2022] EMLR 4. Where Articles 8 and 10 are engaged, neither automatically takes precedence. The court must compare their importance in the particular case, consider the justification for interfering with each right, and assess proportionality.

4. Application. Withholding the claimant’s identity was strictly necessary given the sensitive medical evidence and asserted risk of grave harm. The order also enabled more information about the proceedings to be made public. Some residual possibility of private knowledge or speculation did not deprive the order of substantial protective value. By contrast, the claimant did not establish that the existing safeguards were insufficient or that anonymising the media defendants was necessary. Their identities and journalistic activities formed important context; concealing them would significantly impair public understanding and could constrain the evidence and reporting at trial. The limited additional protection did not justify that interference with open justice and was not proportionate.

5. Trial arrangements. The trial’s starting point is that it should take place in public. Any application for further restrictions must identify the material that cannot safely be heard or reported in public, the harm publicity would cause, why existing safeguards are insufficient and why less restrictive protection would not work. Those questions remained reserved.

This was a first instance decision, not an appeal. The judgment records a private hearing on 5 October 2026 to determine the anonymity applications and an order made that day identifying the claimant by cipher. A fuller judgment was provided privately to the parties.