AC-2025-LON-002497 - [2025] EWHC 2842 (Admin)

The Defendant contends that both jurisdictional bases for ordering a CMP apply, and that it is open to the court to choose between them. The Defendant submits that as the Inquiry’s restriction order, which is under challenge in this claim, was based on a conclusion that there was a risk of serious harm to witnesses and to national security, and those two harms may, or may not, overlap in any given case, it would be preferable to adopt a Haralambous CMP in which the narrow definition of “sensitive material” given in the JSA 2013 would not apply.

The Claimant submits, and I agree, that the starting point for resolving the apparent overlap of these two different CMP jurisdictions is a close analysis of the basis on which the Supreme Court determined that the Haralambous jurisdiction existed.