![[2025] UKUT 029 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
Tribunal Member Hutchinson
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 22 January 2025
Annex: Anonymity: Rule 14 Order
A Rule 14 Order had previously been made by an Upper Tribunal Registrar covering the names of every person identified in the bundle in these proceedings, including the appellant, other staff and children. At the start of the hearing, we asked the parties if they wished these orders to remain in place and also to apply to our judgment. They confirmed that they did. They further confirmed that they considered the name of the pre-school should also be anonymised so as to prevent ‘jigsaw identification’.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- DBS’s decision
- Legal framework
- The Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- The appellant’s evidence at this hearing
- Submissions
- Our decision on the appeal
- Mistake of law? - Proportionality
- Conclusion
- Tribunal Member Stuart-Cole
- In the light of the parties’ positions, we have considered whether it is appropriate to continue the Rule 14 orders made by the Registrar and to extend them as requested by the parties. We bear in min
- Open justice means that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited v Dring [2019] UKSC 38 , [2020] AC 629 the Supreme Court explained the purpose
- Numerous cases have emphasised the link between open justice and the right under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to freedom of expression and have provided guidance on the nature
- An order anonymising someone who would otherwise be named in court proceedings is an interference with the principle of open justice. As Lord Reed JSC described in A v BBC [2015] AC 588 at [23]: “It i
- Ordinarily, it is said that it is not unreasonable to regard a person who brings proceedings as having accepted the normal incidences of their public nature, including the potential embarrassment and
- In this particular jurisdiction, the considerations are somewhat different to those in the authorities we have mentioned, because this is an appeal in relation to the appellant’s inclusion on the barr
- Conclusions