KB-2024-004175 - [2025] EWHC 2050 (KB)

Although Tipples J declined to make a five-year order against Persons Unknown (subject to annual review) she did so on the basis that events in the Middle East at the time of the hearing before her may have resulted in an order of that length being unnecessary. The issue of the length of Order was ultimately adjourned to be determined at the final hearing. I take the view that any optimism the Court may have held as regards the need for a longer order appears to have been misplaced in the light of subsequent events. I take the view that a five-year Order is appropriate and remind myself that in any event an application may be made to set aside this Order, and it will also be subject to annual review. If in twelve months the Court concluded that in fact a five-year Order was no longer required, it would be open to the Court to then vary or discharge the Order I have made. Important safeguards against an unduly long order are built into the annual review process.

Having concluded that the Order should be made for a five-year period I have issued a single Order that applies for the same duration of time in the case of the Named Defendants and Persons Unknown and consolidates the earlier orders made by Tipples J and Murray J into a single Order.