Note that this is a relatively new website category and other anonymisation cases may still be in other categories.
The old category structure shown on this page is comprehensive as it contains every case. The new database structure introduced in 2019 contains fewer cases but is easier to search: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.
The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
|Case and summary||Date added||Categories|
|* Medical treatment, costs, anonymity Re SW  EWCOP 7 — (1) "[A]s matters stand, the transplant being proposed cannot proceed, whatever the court may say or do. As it has been presented to the court, this scarcely coherent application is totally without merit, it is misconceived and it is vexatious. It would be contrary to every principle of how litigation ought to be conducted in the Court of Protection, and every principle of proper case management, to allow this hopelessly defective application to proceed on the forlorn assumption that the son could somehow get his tackle in order and present a revised application which could somehow avoid the fate of its predecessor." (2) "As against the son, the claim for costs could not, in my judgment, be clearer. Given everything I have said, this is the plainest possible case for departing from the ordinary rule, set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, and applying the principles set out in rule 159. ... [B]oth Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, in my judgment, are persons against whom a costs order can be made even though are not, formally, parties to the litigation – and, if that is so, then for the same reasons as in relation to the son, it is, in my judgment, fair and just to order them to pay the costs." (3) "There is no reason why either SW or SAN should be named, and, indeed, every reason why they should not. Nor, in all the circumstances, is there any reason why the son should be named. Dr Waghorn and Dr Jooste, however, stand in a very different position. There is a very strong public interest in exposing the antics which these two struck-off doctors have got up to, not least so that others may be protected from their behaviour."||2018‑03‑28 22:40:05||2017 cases, Anonymisation cases, COP costs cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Medical treatment cases, Reporting restriction order cases
|R v Fuller  EWCA Crim 1867,  MHLO 53 — (1) IPP sentence quashed and replaced with a restricted hospital order. (2) Request for anonymisation refused.||2016‑12‑15 20:47:18||2016 cases, Anonymisation cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Sentence appeal cases, Transcript
|R (C) v SSJ  UKSC 2,  MHLO 2 — (1) There is no presumption of anonymity in proceedings which are about the compulsory powers of detention, care and treatment under the 1983 Act: in each case the judge must decide whether or not anonymity is necessary in the interests of the patient. (2) On the facts, an anonymity order was necessary in the interests of this particular patient. Extracts from judgment: "The first issue before us is whether there should be a presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings, or certain kinds of civil proceedings, in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital, or otherwise subject to compulsory powers, under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The second issue is whether there should be an anonymity order on the facts of this particular case. ... The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be wrong to have a presumption that an order should be made in every case. There is a balance to be struck. The public has a right to know, not only what is going on in our courts, but also who the principal actors are. This is particularly so where notorious criminals are involved. They need to be reassured that sensible decisions are being made about them. On the other hand, the purpose of detention in hospital for treatment is to make the patient better, so that he is no longer a risk either to himself or to others. That whole therapeutic enterprise may be put in jeopardy if confidential information is disclosed in a way which enables the public to identify the patient. It may also be put in jeopardy unless patients have a reasonable expectation in advance that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent. In some cases, that disclosure may put the patient himself, and perhaps also the hospital, those treating him and the other patients there, at risk. The public’s right to know has to be balanced against the potential harm, not only to this patient, but to all the others whose treatment could be affected by the risk of exposure. ... I conclude that an anonymity order is necessary in the interests of this particular patient. His regime before he left hospital, involving escorted leave in the community, demonstrated the need for anonymity and the case is even stronger now (as foreseen in R (M) v Parole Board). Without it there is a very real risk that the progress he has made during his long years of treatment in hospital will be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which was an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, will not succeed. I would therefore allow this appeal and maintain the anonymity order in place."||2016‑01‑27 23:45:15||2016 cases, Anonymisation cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|Re X (anonymity)  EWCA Civ 1009,  MHLO 90 — The press has reported this case as follows: a restricted transferred prisoner patient in medium security judicially reviewed the Secretary of State's refusal to grant permission for unescorted community leave; Cranston J refused to make an anonymity order, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR; Maurice Kay LJ, VP; Floyd LJ). It is understood that an appeal will be made to the Supreme Court.||2014‑08‑11 20:01:46||2014 cases, Anonymisation cases, Brief summary, No transcript
The following 4 pages are in this category.