[2024] UKUT 85 (AAC)

The Appellant made an application for an anonymity order in respect of these proceedings. Generally speaking, there is a strong public interest in cases in courts and tribunals being conducted in public and in the identities of the parties and witnesses being made public. This is often referred to as the principle of ‘open justice’. However, that public interest must always be weighed against countervailing factors, including the relevant individuals’ private right for their private and family life to be respected.

When deciding whether to order anonymity in a case which relates to a barring decision, one must consider the nature of the barring scheme. The DBS does not make the names on the barred lists public. The fact of inclusion is known to the person named, to the DBS and to any party that applies for (and is entitled to apply for) a check of the register in relation to the individual in question (usually a prospective employer) but to no one else.

In R (SXM) v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] EWHC 624 (Admin), [2020] 1 WLR 3259 the Administrative Court held that the disclosure to the complainant of the outcome of a referral to the DBS was inconsistent with the statutory structure and the public interest in protecting and safeguarding vulnerable groups was sufficiently protected by the barring decision itself and the facility for prospective employers or those otherwise entitled to obtain disclosure of the entry from the DBS.

The case for the pupil receiving anonymity is overwhelming given her age and vulnerability and given the sensitive nature of the evidence. While the case for the Appellant receiving anonymity is somewhat less strong, we were influenced by what the Appellant told us about the impact on his mental health of the reporting of his case before the Teaching Regulation Agency. We were also influenced by the fact that if the Appellant is identified there is a risk that the identity of the pupil might be ascertainable by way of what is sometimes called “jigsaw identification”. For the same reason, we consider it appropriate to prevent any of the other witnesses, and indeed the school, from being identified too. In all the circumstances, the balance of interests favoured the making of an anonymity order in this case in the terms set out above.

For these reasons this judgment shall refer to the Appellant as “XYZ”, the pupil as “Pupil A”, her father as “Father A”, the school as “the School” and the School’s head teacher as “the Head Teacher”.