JWS vs JZX

This case involved the High Court granting an anonymity order to the defendant in a sensitive case involving allegations of historic sexual abuse.

TLDR:

• Anonymity order granted to the defendant.
• Balancing of Article 8 and Article 10 rights.
• Exceptional evidence weighed in favor of the defendant's privacy.
• Potential for jigsaw identification considered.
• Order subject to potential revision based on new evidence.

The case involved JWS as the claimant and JZX as the defendant. The claimant alleged historic sexual abuse by the defendant, which purportedly caused psychiatric harm. The defendant sought an anonymity order to protect his privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Master Stevens granted the anonymity order on the papers on 22nd April 2024, later amended under the slip rule on 9th May 2024. The court undertook a careful balancing exercise between the defendant's Article 8 rights and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, concluding that exceptional evidence favored the defendant's privacy.

The court considered the potential for jigsaw identification of the claimant, who had already been granted anonymity as an alleged victim of historic sexual abuse. The parties were known to each other publicly and professionally, which elevated the risk of identification.

The defendant agreed to waive anonymity if the claim succeeded, but the court emphasized that granting or waiving anonymity is a judicial decision. The court found no merit in conducting a non-contested hearing and disposed of the application on the papers.

The original anonymity order included standard wording from Practice Form 10, which was later removed under the slip rule as the matter was determined on the papers. The court was aware of one request for attendance by a freelance journalist but found no suggestion of representation at the time.

The court emphasized that the anonymity order at this stage does not preclude the possibility of removing anonymity if new evidence warrants reconsideration. The order also allows any interested party to apply to vary or discharge it.

The court found no justification for interfering with the defendant's Article 8 rights at this early stage, given the significant evidential challenges to the claimant's case. The defendant's medical evidence indicated a likely health impact from loss of privacy, which met the standard to merit interference with open justice principles.

The defendant's reputation and business interests were also considered, with the court noting the high risk of irreparable damage if the defendant's identity was revealed. The court found no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure at this stage.

To manage the claim justly and proportionately, the court granted the anonymity order, mindful of its duty under the Human Rights Act. The order allows for a full report of proceedings while keeping the parties' identities anonymized, subject to potential revision as the claim progresses.

Legal representatives: Iain O'Donnell (instructed by Leigh & Day & Co) for the claimant, Catherine Foster (instructed by Rainer Hughes) for the defendant.

Judicial Panel: Master Stevens

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1345 (KB)