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

In his OPEN RO Ruling, the Defendant noted that the GHROA application was supported by evidence that:

“(1)

should their identity become known within the military community, they will be the subject of adverse consequences from individuals within UK Armed Forces and UKSF in particular;

(2)

disclosure of the detail of their evidence may lead to their identification;

(3)

matters relating to the vulnerability of individual witnesses support the making of such an order;

(4)

without such an order the witnesses would be unwilling to give evidence.”

The Defendant concluded at [10] of the OPEN RO Ruling:

“Having carefully considered the evidence filed in support of the application, I am satisfied that there is a real risk of serious harm to the witnesses and to National Security that could be avoided by making the Restriction Order sought.”

So it is clear that the Defendant’s conclusion was based on harm to the witnesses as well as harm to national security. In these circumstances, and for the reasons I have given in my CLOSED judgment, I am satisfied that I should make directions for a Haralambous CMP to be held, to enable the court to consider material that is sensitive for reasons other than national security, and which would otherwise have to be subject to PII.

In my judgment, the sensible course is to give directions, subject to further order, for the procedure to be followed in the CMP held pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction to replicate the statutory procedure.