TC09644 ****** - [2025] UKFTT 01121 (TC)

This decision necessarily discusses in detail the mental health of PO, including detailed discussions of suicidal ideation. The hearing was not held in private, but no person other than the parties and witnesses were present. At the end of the hearing, at my suggestion, Mr McNamee made an application that the decision be anonymised. HMRC indicated that they were neutral in relation to the application.

As no part of the hearing was in private, r.32(6) does not apply. The relevant principles are most recently set out in HMRC v Dettori [2024] UKUT 12 (TCC); [2024] STC 343. There is a very strong presumption in favour of open hearings and open justice and so against anonymisation. This is demonstrated by A v BBC [2014] UKSC 25 at [25]; Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd; Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 819 at [13] and HMRC v Banerjee (No 2) [2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch), [2009] STC 1930 at [35].

It is clear that the appellant is sensitive concerning his mental health, the evidence shows that he was reluctant to share details with his family and his GP. The appellant has suicidal ideations and there is the potential that publication of his detailed medical history could expose him to a real risk of self-harm, which would engage his Article 3 rights. Those rights are absolute and not subject to any balancing exercise. We have therefore decided to anonymise the appellant and (as it could enable him to be identified) his controller and make the order that is detailed at the end of the decision. Accordingly we consider that the order that appears at the end of the decision is in the interests of justice.

Even if we were wrong concerning Article 3, we consider that the detailed discussion of his mental health so strongly engages his Article 8 rights, that it outweighs the strong public interest in open justice and the Article 10 rights of the press. Accordingly the order that appears at the end of the decision would be in the interests of justice. The only redactions/restrictions are in respect of the identities of the appellant and his controller and the published decision fully sets out our reasoning and the facts on which we have based our decision. Accordingly, even if we were wrong in relation to Article 3, this limited restriction of open justice is proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the Article 8 rights of the appellant.